Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Dentists

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the large number of dentists who have decided not to take part in the General Dental Service under the National Health Act, he will invite the Dental Consultative Committee to meet him again in order to try and find agreement on outstanding differences.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): No, Sir. The terms of service offered to dentists are in my view generous and reasonable, and I believe that most individual dentists will feel the same.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the happy result which followed his gesture to the doctors, he will make a similar gesture now to the dentists, so as to ensure that the benefits of the dental part of the Health Service reach the people at the earliest possible time?

Mr. Bevan: I am convinced from the figures of the dentists joining up, that very soon, almost all the dentists will be taking service under the Act. In any case, we cannot submit to what may, unless we are careful, become blackmail.

Doctors

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Health the proportion of the population that have selected a doctor under the National Health Act up to 5th July.

Mr. Bevan: By 5th July well over 30 million of the total civilian population of 42 million in England and Wales had

been accepted by doctors under the National Health Service Act. There is still a flood of forms in the hands of doctors and Executive Councils, which have not been counted.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that the old panel figures?

Mr. Bevan: Yes; but it is very difficult at this stage to analyse the figures, because it may be that many on the panel have applied unnecessarily.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain hon. Members opposite are inserting in newspapers letters purporting to tell the people that they cannot have this service without a contributory stamp, and that—

Mr. Speaker: This Question does not ask what hon. Members opposite are doing, but asks:
What is the proportion of the population that have selected a doctor.

Mrs. Mann: It means that because of that false information only a quarter of the population in Glasgow have chosen a doctor.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Health how the amount of the capitation fee to medical practitioners under the National Health Act will be arrived at; what deductions come out of the 15s. 6d. per head; and how the amount for each area will be computed, having regard to the proportion of the population who have not selected a doctor.

Mr. Bevan: Detailed arrangements are still under discussion with the British Medical Association.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of general medical practitioners are very perturbed about this; that there is grave fear that their total emoluments and income will be considerably reduced from pre-National Insurance income; and that they want to know whether the total pool will be available to them?

Mr. Bevan: I think they ought to await the results of the discussions with the representatives of the medical profession.

Hospital Boards (Committees)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Health if Regional and Group Hospital Boards have power to co-opt a limited number of extra members.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; but Regional Hospital Boards, hospital management committees and boards of governors of teaching hospitals have power to appoint committees and sub-committees consisting partly of outside members, and to delegate functions to them.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it not inevitable when these committees are first set up that certain local interests, such as hospital boards and ex-Service men, and others, will be left out; and would it not give great public satisfaction if there were, say, a 10 per cent. margin for co-option?

Mr. Bevan: As I have said, the local management committees and Regional Boards have power to co-opt people on to the sub-committees, and also on to the house committees of individual hospitals. I believe that will be done on a very considerable scale.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether verminous members will be included or excluded?

Mr. Bevan: Well, of course, if there are verminous members on the Boards they will have to be fumigated.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some localities the representatives of the local Labour Party seem to be the only people who have been left on these Boards?

Mr. Bevan: I think that is a false impression, but I am here between two fires.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider encouraging Boards, when selecting outside members to sit on the committees, to make sure that those areas which are not represented on the Boards, and which have hospitals, are allowed to produce members for the committees?

Mr. Bevan: I think that probably hon. Members are now confusing membership of the Regional Board with membership of the management committee. Under the Statute I have no power over the selection of the management committee.

Voluntary Hospital Workers (Tribute)

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make regarding all those people who have administered the various past health services up to 5th July, and who have now handed over to the National Health Service.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health if he intends to supplement the official circular dismissing the members of hospital committees with a personal letter expressing the thanks of the community for the devoted service they have rendered.

Mr. Bevan: It would, unfortunately, not be practicable for me to send out personal letters to all those associated with the health services taken over on 5th July. But I should like to take this opportunity of expressing—I hope on behalf of the House, as well as myself—my keen appreciation of all that has been done in the hospitals, local authorities, insurance committees and elsewhere, by men and women who have had the public interest unselfishly at heart. Without their pioneer work, our new adventure would have been impossible. I am only too glad that many of them are going to join us in it still.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have been more comprehensive in his statement—which is a very important statement—and included organisations such as the District Nursing Association?

Mr. Bevan: It is, unfortunately, the fact that in answers of this sort it is assumed that what is not put in has been deliberately left out. Therefore, it would, I think, be improper to put them all in.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Construction

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Health how many new houses are estimated to be required in England and Wales at the present time to meet essential needs; and whether he is satisfied that the present level of housing construction is utilising to the full the manpower and materials available to the building industry.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement in the May Housing Return.

Building Licence, Worcester

Mr. Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of paragraph 14 of Command Paper No. 7442, he is now prepared to authorise the issue of a building licence to Mr. A. Pagett, of 2, Pope Iron Road, Worcester, for the erection of a bungalow at Blue Hills, St. Agnes, Cornwall.

Mr. Bevan: The matter is within the discretion of the local authority, to whom, as I understand, Mr. Pagett has applied for a licence and not to my Department.

Agricultural Cottages (Subsidies)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities are using subsidies granted to them in respect of houses built for agricultural workers for the purpose of reducing rents generally and not for the purpose of reducing rents to agricultural workers.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Touche: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable that agricultural labourers should be deprived of any benefit with regard to rents when subsidies are given to local authorities for the building of agricultural cottages?

Mr. Bevan: The subsidies are to enable local authorities in agricultural areas to discharge their housing functions, and they have no direct relationship to the rent of a particular house.

Mr. Touche: Is not the purpose of giving subsidies for agricultural cottages to lower the rents to the agricultural workers?

Mr. Bevan: The rents are in the power of the local authorities themselves, and I have no authority over them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of local authorities using subsidies for this purpose generally?

Mr. Bevan: I do not understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. The subsidies are used in order to enable the local authorities to build houses at

rents which are within reach of the tenants; and that I think is generally the case.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in favour of local authorities using the subsidies for reducing rents generally.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Wales

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Health to what causes he ascribes the lower rate of progress in housing in Wales as compared with other regions of the United Kingdom; and if he proposes to take steps to correct the disparity.

Mr. Bevan: Having regard to the labour available, the progress does not compare unfavourably. Every effort has been made to increase the labour force.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the fact that in the Southern and Eastern regions of England, both of which have populations slightly less than Wales, the housing operations since the war are about double those in Wales, does he not think that there is a case for a searching inquiry into the position?

Mr. Bevan: There is no need for an inquiry, as we know the reason. We know that between the war years, Wales, as a whole, lost a great deal of its population and a great deal of its building force. After the war, there was, therefore, a far greater building force in South and South-Eastern England than there was in Wales. In other words, this proves that we have to pay now for the pre-war neglect of Wales.

Nottingham

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that the builders of Nottingham have offered to build 1,000 houses for sale at £1,300 each, when he proposes to issue the licences.

Mr. Bevan: The decision on applications for licences is a matter for the local authority under the terms of Circular 108/48, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir W. Smithers: But is not the local authority subject to the decision of the Minister of Health; and is not the Minister


of Health deliberately trying to create conditions in which Communism can flourish?

Mr. Speaker: That is an insinuation and not a Question.

Local Authorities (Requisitioning Powers)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health what changed circumstances have led him to withdraw from clerks to local authorities the requisitioning powers hitherto delegated to them.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 1st July following the Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

Mr. Beswick: I have seen that reply, but it does not give the answer I wanted. Is there any evidence that the clerks to local authorities have in the past wrongfully or mischievously used the power which he delegated to them?

Mr. Bevan: There are cases on this matter before the courts at the moment, and I, therefore, would not wish to be asked to comment upon it.

Mr. Tiffany: Would it not be better to to leave this power in the hands of clerks to the local authorities, who are aware of the local circumstances; and in any case, has not this power had good effect in seeing that unused accommodation was immediately taken up?

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend need not fear that the powers will not be exercised promptly where they are needed to be exercised. The number of cases in which they are used now is falling very rapidly indeed. However, I must not be asked to comment upon the way in which clerks have used these powers, in view of the cases before the courts.

Mr. Beswick: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in certain areas these powers would still be very useful indeed if left with the clerks to the local authorities; and will he, therefore, reconsider the position as far as at any rate certain parts of the country are concerned?

Mr. Bevan: No; but I will certainly keep my eye on what is happening, and

if it is found that this new machinery is too dilatory, then, of course, we shall reconsider it.

Building Permits

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Health how many building permits he expects to be issued by local authorities to private individuals under circular 108/48 during the current year.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot add anything to the statement published in the current Housing Return.

Mr. Amory: Is it not a fact that local authorities in general have already put in hand their allocations for the current year, and that very few, if any, permits for houses of private individuals are likely to be issued during this year.

Mr. Bevan: Some of the local authorities who have not yet invited tenders for the whole of their last allocation can include this proportion in that allocation and all new allocations; but the House will probably have an early opportunity of discussing the matter.

Hull

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses in Hull which were accepted as total loss by war damage; the number of new houses completed; the number now under construction and approved, respectively; and the probable number to be approved for the second half of 1948.

Mr. Bevan: The number of houses in Hull destroyed or damaged beyond repair by enemy action is approximately 5,500. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Appendix B to the Housing Return. As regards the last part of the Question, the local authority have been authorised to go to tender for a further 267 houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARSTON GREEN MATERNITY HOME

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the re-adaptation of Marston Green Maternity Home by the Birmingham City Council is being delayed by the inability to obtain piping; and what steps he will take to rectify this situation.

Mr. Bevan: The provision of the first 30 beds will not be delayed by inability to obtain piping, but shortage may delay the completion of the central heating at the hospital. Everything possible will be done to reduce this delay.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend use his great powers of persuasion on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to release some of the considerable quantities of piping in store so as to enable this hospital to be completed?

Mr. Bevan: I have said that I will take every step to complete it as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED PERSONS (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to appoint an advisory committee in connection with the welfare services for physically handicapped persons provided for in the National Assistance Act, 1948; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I told local authorities of my intention in a recent circular, and I shall shortly be taking the necessary action.

Mr. Evans: Does that mean that the Minister proposes to set up an advisory committee on a representative basis of the various interests concerned with certain types of handicapped people; and will they be able to call on specialist advice by co-option?

Mr. Bevan: It would, of course, be my action to consult representative bodies. But these advisory committees are not representative committees; they are conferences; they are the appropriate advisory committees under the Act; but everybody concerned in the matter will be given an opportunity of putting forward names.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (REPORT)

Mr. Medland: asked the Minister of Health if he will now inform the House on the action the Government propose to take to implement the recommendations for legislation contained in the

Local Government Boundary Commission's report for 1947.

Mr. Bevan: I have nothing further to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. House) on 8th April.

Mr. Medland: Can the Minister inform us whether it is proposed to discuss this report in the House prior to legislation being promulgated?

Mr. Bevan: I suppose hon. Members have many opportunities for raising these matters if they so desire. I have no desire to obstruct a Debate, but there is no early prospect of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Catholic Schools, Lancashire

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Education how many new Catholic schools have been opened in Lancashire since 1945, specifying the areas and the dates upon which the schools have been opened.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): None, Sir. But work is being carried out, or should shortly begin, on 10 Roman Catholic schools in Lancashire, seven of which will be new schools. This is in addition to an extensive programme of war damage repairs to Catholic schools in Liverpool which has been approved and on which work is in progress.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Minister of Education (1) why his Department have refused to permit the use of the church hall as a temporary school at St. Osmund's, Bolton, pending the decision regarding the permanent Catholic school to be erected, in view of the fact that 1,800 new houses are being built in the area, of which a high proportion of the occupants will be Catholics;
(2) if he will make a full statement regarding discussions which have taken place between his Department and the chief education officer and members of the education committee of the Bolton Town Council and the promoters, regarding the Catholic school which it is proposed should be built at St. Osmund's in Bolton; and why this matter has been constantly deferred, in spite of the fact that the need for such a school has been established.

Mr. Tomlinson: The latest information before me shows that the number of houses under construction in this area does not approach the figure of 1,800 given by my hon. Friend, and that the proportion of Roman Catholics among the future occupiers is not expected to be unusually high. No immediate need for a new school has been proved, but I have promised as a result of recent discussions with the local education authority to review the matter at the beginning of September. I could not agree to the establishment of a new school in the church hall even as a temporary measure. My Department has on several occasions explained to the authority and to the promoters that this hall is quite unsuitable for the purpose.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even if permission were granted for the building of a new school it could not possibly be completed before 1950, and that by that time there would be 280 pupils, based on an entry of 40 pupils per year, which would establish a claim for a school? A school cannot be provided at short notice to accommodate these children, and it is no use pretending that it can be.

Mr. Tomlinson: Those figures are hypothetical. In every instance in which a new school is built these factors are taken into account.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the completely inconclusive nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Secondary Schools, Birmingham

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Education the grounds upon which he refused a permit for the erection of a girls' grammar school in South Birmingham; if he approves of the reorganisation of the two secondary schools at Hortfield Crescent, namely, a mixed modern school for boys and a grammar school for girls; what conditions will attach to this proposal submitted at the instance of the Birmingham Education Committee; and if, in view of the efficiency of Birmingham educational administration, he will afford full facilities for rapid promotion of reconstruction of those schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: The local education authority were informed in September, 1946, that the provision of a new grammar school in South Birmingham was not as urgent as others of their projects. I have approved the reorganisation of Hart-field Crescent Schools subject to certain conditions about which I am writing to the hon. Member. I shall help as far as I can to get the approved work done quickly.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the high standard of efficiency in the administration of education in Birmingham, will not the Minister give every possible facility for the development of these secondary schools in that area?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, but not until questions that are more urgent in relation to other areas have been dealt with.

Girls' Training Corps

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of. Education if he has had under consideration any scheme for the encouragement of the expansion of the Girls' Training Corps; if he realises the valuable educational influence of this organisation upon the training and character of young women throughout the country; and if he will stimulate interest in this cadet movement through local education committees.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. My Department has encouraged the Girls' Training Corps since its formation, both directly and through the local education authorities.

Sir P. Hannon: What steps does the Minister propose to take to give publicity to the importance of development in this way?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot separate the Girls' Training Corps from the many other youth organisations which are doing excellent work. I would point out that this corps figures with the others in the publicity that is being given.

Sir P. Hannon: May I take it that the Ministry are in full sympathy with the development of the youth movement in its various phases throughout the country?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, and that is shown by the grants which are constantly being given.

Agricultural Subjects

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Education if he will consider sending a circular to all local education authorities specifically urging them to include agricultural education in the school curriculum in urban as well as in the rural areas.

Mr. Tomlinson: School authorities generally are already alive to the importance of including agricultural subjects in the curriculum in appropriate cases.

Brigadier Medlicott: May we take it that the authorities will have the fullest support and encouragement of the Minister in this very important matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: Certainly, and if Members who are particularly interested will take the opportunity to visit schools they will see that this is being done.

Mr. Levy: Will the Minister, on the contrary, resist any suggestion that the few meagre years allotted to education should be used up for the purpose of pre-fabricating agricultural workers, plumbers, dentists or any other categories on purely economic as opposed to educational grounds?

Mrs. Manning: Will my right hon. Friend consider, in view of the importance of interesting children in urban schools in agricultural education, the possibility of sending older boys and girls to work in schools in the country for three months in the Summer if they would like to go?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is a bigger question which I should like to look into.

Comprehensive Schools, Middlesex

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Education which local education committees in Middlesex have expressed a wish either for or against the setting up of comprehensive schools in their areas.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that when the Middlesex local education authority discussed with the divisional executives the proposal to include comprehensive schools in the Development Plan two of them, Enfield and Twickenham, formally opposed the proposal. Enfield have since

lodged an objection with me. Hayes and Harlington have written to me asking for a comprehensive school to be established there.

Mr. Keeling: As the Minister said the other day that comprehensive schools would be set up in two Middlesex areas, may we take it that the experiment will be tried in two places only and in no others?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not say "In no others," because approval has since been given to a third which has been asked for.

Mr. Keeling: Where is that?

Mr. Tomlinson: Hayes.

Youth Leaders (Training)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Education if he is now in a position to make a statement arising from the report by the Departmental Committee on the status and training of youth leaders.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I hope to receive this report at the end of July.

School Premises (Lettings)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that Buckingham Gate School, Westminster, is being let for a Fascist meeting on 24th July, although a similar meeting on 7th February last led to a defacement of the school; and whether he will issue a general directive that school halls shall not be used for such purposes.

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the letting of county school premises outside school hours is within the discretion of the local education authority.

Mr. Hynd: As this evil is likely to spread throughout the country, is it not time that the Minister issued some general directions, particularly in view of the experience of this school last time a Fascist meeting was held there.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. I do not think the Minister is in a position to issue a direction regarding matters over which the local authority has discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAKISTAN TROOPS (PALESTINE)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if he has received any information about the size and constitution of the military contingent pledged by the Dominion of Pakistan for operational service in Palestine;
(2) whether he is aware that the Dominion of Pakistan has pledged itself to send a contingent of troops to engage in active military operations in Palestine; and what attitude has been taken in this matter by His Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I have received no information that the Government of Pakistan has pledged itself to send a contingent of troops to Palestine. The second part of Question No. 32 does not therefore arise.

Dr. Segal: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has been associated with movements for world peace all his life make no representations to the Government of Pakistan? Is he prepared to accept the position that a British Dominion can engage in war-like activities without any word of warning or advice from the Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: First, I have no information, as I said earlier, and therefore none of this arises. Secondly, I think Members in all parts of the House hope that the fighting in Palestine will not restart, and therefore none of this is practicable anyway.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Industrial Overalls

Mr. Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of industrial overalls is having an adverse effect upon production in many factories; and whether he will take immediate steps to give overall manufacturers the increased supplies of utility cotton drills, without which they can neither speed up their deliveries nor reduce their costs.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my

hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) on 29th June.

Mr. Ward: Without knowing what that answer was, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that one company in Worcestershire which is making overalls is down to 55 per cent. of its capacity and is likely to go down to 40 per cent. in the near future; and that it has 45,000 garments on order and can deliver only in 16 weeks instead of two? Does he realise how serious is this situation?

Mr. Wilson: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the answer referred to. I am well aware of the shortage of industrial overalls. It is due to the shortage of drill cloth which is mostly being exported to Canada.

Mr. William Shepherd: As the provision of overalls is a requirement under the Factory Acts, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that these Acts are being complied with?

Mr. Wilson: I am not aware that the shortage is sufficiently great to involve any infringement of the Factory Acts.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main contributory factor, namely the shortage of material, arises out of a defect in the controls which permit finer cloths to be sold completely without control, thereby diminishing the supply of heavier industrial cloth? Will he look into this aspect of the matter?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, that is not the explanation of this particular shortage. We are having a lot of discussions with the cotton industry at the present time about the working of the controls and the reaction on the production of different kinds of cloth.

Higher Grade Utility Cloth

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of higher grade utility cloth for home consumption; and what steps are being taken to make available increased supplies.

Mr. H. Wilson: Production of the higher grade utility cloths is limited by the need to leave adequate capacity for the production of similar cloth for export especially to hard currency markets. Subject to this,


it is my intention to maintain a substantial production of higher grade utility cloths, but I cannot jeopardise supplies of the cheaper cloths required by those with less money.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that increased supplies of high grade utility cloth will be made available in the near future?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I hope production will increase, but we cannot have it increasing at the expense of the cheaper utility cloth.

Industries, Salford

Mr. Hardy: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any proposals to attract or encourage additional industries in Salford now that the Corporation have been given powers to acquire valuable industrial land adjacent to railways and docks.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. Salford is in the fortunate position of having a wide range of industries. Additional land can be used to full advantage for the re-siting or expansion of existing works.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many industries were lost to Salford during the blitz, and that the Corporation have recently acquired 13 acres of land for industrial purposes? What encouragement is he prepared to give them?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware that the problem of finding factory space to employ people in Salford is much smaller than the problem we have in other parts of the country, to which we must first attend.

Coatbridge Industrial Estate (Factories)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many factories have been let to the Coatbridge Industrial Estate, when it is expected to be occupied or when building of factories will begin.

Mr. H. Wilson: Approval has so far been given to the building of two factories with a total area of 120,000 sq. ft. These are in course of erection.

Timber (Distribution)

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, following the decision that building repair work could be permitted up to the sum of £100 per annum free of building licence, the Timber Control has refused to continue the small allowance of timber given to builders and contractors for day to day repairs and is now insisting on the necessity of application for licences for timber with full details against definite work only; and what are the reasons for this decision.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. It has been found by experience that a better distribution of the available timber can be secured by issues against actual orders. A licence can however be obtained against a group of orders covering three to four weeks ahead.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision that a licence should be required for these small repairs cut across the recent authority given by the Minister of Health that repairs can be done up to £100 without a licence?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, that decision was taken having regard to the supply of timber available for this kind of job. Something like 44 per cent. of the soft wood allocation for civil use is used on these kinds of jobs.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Timber Control is considered inefficient and extravagant by all those who have to deal with it—builders and such like—and will he look into its entire operation?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. The Timber Control has been responsible for great national savings during the last two or three years.

Footwear (Retail Shops, Monmouthshire)

Mr. West: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new retail businesses opened for the sale of footwear in Monmouthshire over the last two years; in what districts these businesses are located; and what coupon floats have been issued in respect of them.

Mr. H. Wilson: As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 26th February last, it has not been necessary since 31st


December, 1945, to obtain a licence to open a shop for the sale of footwear, and I cannot therefore state the number of such new businesses which have been opened in Monmouthshire in the last two years. About 35,000 coupons have, however, been issued since June, 1946, to nine persons in Monmouthshire to start the retail selling of footwear, situated in or near Newport, Pontypool, Chepstow, Tredegar, Blaina and Risca. Approximately the same number of coupons have been issued to 14 other new retail businesses in the county to sell rationed goods, including footwear.

Mr. West: Would my hon. Friend say how many of these coupon floats have been issued to ex-Service men?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that Question.

Technical Publications (Imports)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to give a decision on the importation from the U.S.A. of technical magazines, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have now arranged that any person may import, either for himself or on behalf of others, single postal copies of learned, scientific, technical and religious periodicals, and periodicals printed exclusively in a foreign language. Details will be published shortly through the usual channels.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will give great satisfaction? For once I have compelled a Member of the Government to give way. Is he also aware that these publications are the raw material for the export trade, and are well worth the small dollar expenditure involved?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that.

Curtain Material (Prices)

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some curtain material since this material has gone off dockets has increased in price as much as 160 per cent.; and what action he will take to

stop such a practice which causes hardship to housewives.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) on 22nd June.

Carpets

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to limit the over-riding powers of the Carpet Manufacturers' Executive, who are not only discriminating against carpet wholesalers who do not submit to their authority, but who are actually encouraging traders to contravene the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts, 1939–43, by insisting that they sell carpets at a higher price than that laid down by these Acts.

Mr. H. Wilson: The answer to the first part of the Question is that I have at present no power to interfere with the arrangements made by the manufacturers for the distribution of their carpets on the home market. I have no evidence which supports the allegation in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that in a prosecution by the Board of Trade in Edinburgh it was demonstrated that the order then in operation could not be understood, and that the new order which has been issued gives full power to manufacturers to charge what prices they like?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, that is not so, and the decision of the court in that case was in direct contravention to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in the second part of his Question.

Newsprint Allocation (Holiday Periods)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that a large number of people on holiday and who are interested in test matches and other sporting events, including the Olympic Games, have no facilities for listening to the B.B.C. news bulletins, he will consider increasing the supply of newsprint as a special allocation for the holiday period to enable newsagents at seaside and holiday resorts to supply more weekly, daily and evening newspapers to meet the present unsatisfied demand.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) on 1st July.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of working people are now on holiday and are having to queue at newspaper shops where there is literally a famine in evening newspapers? Does he think that this will help his production drive during the coming winter?

Mr. Wilson: It has been explained to hon. Members who have put similar Questions that the newsprint situation does not allow the allocation of extra supplies for these areas.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman pursued the idea of getting an extra allocation from the United States, outside the E.R.P. arrangements, by asking for it?

Mr. Wilson: We shall always be delighted to see any extra supplies coming in outside the E.R.P. arrangements. The question of newsprint in relation to E.R.P. is still under discussion with the American Government.

Mr. Fletcher: I said "ask for it outside."

Mr. Granville: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to grant a special increased allocation for the holiday period, will he make representations to the Newspaper Proprietors' Association with a view to seeing that an allocation is made to the holiday resorts for this period?

Mr. Wilson: I am prepared to go into that question.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Inquiry)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Lord President of the Council in view of the importance of ensuring that at least one of our nationalised undertakings is brought into line with the new conceptions of socialist administration, proposals for which were included in a report which was submitted to him in February, 1947, if he will give an undertaking that the committee of inquiry into the B.B.C. will be set up within a month to enable the necessary full inquiry and re-organisation to take place before the new charter is

granted so that the terms of the new charter may incorporate the principles of organisation proposed to him.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I regret that I cannot give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cases of alleged victimisation of members of the staff, and also of professional or other broadcasters? Would he have the question of adequate representation of an independent nature looked into, particularly when the eventual investigation into the B.B.C. is held?

Mr. Morrison: There will be an investigation, a committee of inquiry, and I should have thought that it would have been perfectly competent for evidence on that subject to be tendered.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Building Trade Operatives (Discharges)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour why certain building trade operatives, who have been discharged on account of lack of work, have been authorised by the officers of employment exchanges to continue to draw their wages through the employment exchanges without necessarily doing any constructive work.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I have no knowledge of any such arrangements. If the hon. Member will let me have details of the cases he has in mind I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will not countenance action of this sort?

Mr. Isaacs: I can give an assurance that if the facts are such as have been stated I will take action, but I have no information and I do not think this exists at all.

Industrial Electricity Load

Mr. Frederick Lee: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about arrangements for spreading the industrial electricity load next winter.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. This matter has been under very careful consideration, and


it is clear that steps must be taken next winter to reduce the load on the power stations during the peak periods of the morning and evening. The Electricity Sub-Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council have made certain recommendations which have been accepted by the Government. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library. I will circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

This matter has been under very careful consideration, and it is clear that steps must be taken next winter to reduce the load on the power stations during the peak periods in the morning and evening. The risk would otherwise arise of cuts in the supply of electricity on a scale sufficient to cause serious intereference with vital industrial production.

While this is a problem which concerns all classes of consumers the contribution which industry should be asked to make towards its solution has been considered by the Electricity Sub-Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council. They have recommended that during the months of December, January and February, when there will be, taking the country as a whole, a substantial deficiency of generating plant in relation to the potential peak demands, industry should be asked to reduce its load by 20 per cent. during the peak hours, which are 8 a.m.—12 noon and 4 p.m.—5.30 p.m. As last winter, arrangements to achieve this should again be worked out by the regional boards for industry and their district, town and other local committees with the firms concerned. During the months of October, November and March the problem is not uniform over the whole country. The Committee therefore recommend that as regards these three months the regional boards for industry should examine the problem in the light of the circumstances of their own region and in collaboration with the British Electricity Authority, and should make such arrangements as they consider necessary. Copies of the Electricity Sub-Committee's Report have been placed in the Library.

The Government have accepted these recommendations and are asking the regional boards for industry to make the

necessary arrangements. They are confident that both sides of industry will once again show the same spirit of co-operation which characterised last winter's arrangements, but, as an assurance to the vast majority of public-spirited employers and workpeople that their efforts will not be rendered useless by any selfish minority, the Government have accepted the further recommendation that there should be available, as last winter, powers to secure the observance by firms of their obligation to reduce their load by spreading or other means when requested to do so by a regional board for industry.

It is not enough to make these arrangements to reduce the consumption of electricity by industry during the peak periods. Other classes of consumers must also make a contribution proportionate to their demand. It has therefore been decided, as announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, to place commercial consumers, including shops, offices, warehouses, hotels and cinemas, within the scope of the arrangements made by the regional boards for industry and they also will be required to reduce their consumption by 20 per cent. during the peak hours on the same basis as industry. Methods of controlling demand by non-industrial consumers have been investigated by a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Clow, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, and I understand its report will shortly be published. I would emphasise that it is essential that domestic consumers who are responsible for a very considerable proportion of the total demands during the peak periods, should play their part in this matter. Only by a combined effort on the part of all consumers can this problem be overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Marshall Aid (Quarterly Statements)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, during the period of Marshall Aid, he will issue a monthly or quarterly statement of our assets in gold and dollars available for use in the U.S.A.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Member


will have heard the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend last Monday. Similar statements will be made at quarterly intervals.

British Transport Stock (Interest)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the certificates of deduction of Income Tax from the interest paid on British Transport 3 per cent. guaranteed stock are in some cases signed by the Transport Commission and in others by the Bank of England.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: For technical reasons associated with the magnitude of the operation interest on a part of the Transport Stock is at present being paid direct by the Commission and part by the Bank of England. This is a temporary measure which will be discontinued so soon as transfer of all the Stock to the Register of the Bank of England has been completed. In both cases the Income Tax certificate will be accepted by the Inland Revenue in respect of claims for exemption or relief from tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS ABROAD (WAR LOSSES)

Mr. Collins: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is now in a position to announce a decision regarding the date and manner of reimbursement of civil servants for property lost by enemy action whilst on duty overseas.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: A scheme has been drawn up under which payments are already being made. A few outstanding questions remain to be resolved, but I hope shortly to put the scheme into general operation.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is considering the position of those civil servants who were instructed by the Department to make claims from the Enemy Claims Commission, who so far are not receiving payment and who do not know what is their position?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, I have no knowledge of the type of claim to which my hon. Friend refers. Perhaps if he feels we are not doing justice to those individuals he will let me have details of any case he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total number of non-industrial civil servants on 1st July, 1948; and the number by which this total exceeds or falls short of the total on 1st July, 1947 and 1946, respectively.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that figures for 1st July, 1948, are not yet available. At 1st April, 1948, the total number of non-industrial civil servants was 693,403, 12,265 fewer than at 1st April, 1947, and 5,032 more than at 1st April, 1946.

Mr. Keeling: May we take it from that that the promised efforts of the Government to effect a substantial reduction in the number of civil servants have not had the success which it was hoped they would have?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think the hon. Member should read that into the figures I have given.

Mr. Tiffany: Do those figures include civil servants employed in the new social insurance services?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Only in so far as they have been appointed.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of what proportion of this increase can be definitely attributed to the set-up of the new insurance offices in Newcastle?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The statement should be in the Vote Office this afternoon and perhaps it would be better if my hon. Friend waited until he could see the full figures, both for the Department he has in mind and for others.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Recruitment (Coloured Men)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the recent incidents of coloured men from the Colonies being turned down in their application for recruitment to the coalmining industry, he will exercise his powers of direction to the National Coal Board to get this policy altered, thus enabling volunteers from the Colonies to be trained as miners.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): No, Sir. I am informed by the National Coal Board that they raise no objection on racial grounds to the employment of individuals suitable and willing to take underground work.

Mr. Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware that although that may be the policy, it is not, in fact, being carried out in practice, and would he look into incidents which have recently been reported to see if, in fact, practical expression cannot be given to the theory that these men are on an equal citizenship basis with ourselves?

Mr. Robens: From the point of view of the National Coal Board there is no objection at all, but in some parts there is objection by the local mining community and we must take into consideration their views on this matter.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how many coloured men have been accepted for employment and in what collieries?

Mr. Robens: Not without notice.

Mr. J. Lewis: If there is any objection made at any time to these men, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that they are welcome in the cotton industry in Lancashire, where many of them are employed and where they are doing a good job?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: When the Parliamentary Secretary says we must take into account the views of the mining community on this matter, surely he is not going to allow a view contrary to every feeling and expression of this House to persist without making some effort to break it down?

Mr. Robens: It is not a question of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The fact is that in relation to the employment of people underground there is an agreement that the local lodges of the National Union of Mineworkers will be consulted concerning E.V.W's. and other people. There have been one or two objections for various reasons and we have to take into consideration all these factors, but it is not general throughout the whole coalfields. It is gradually being broken down and where we can use our influence we certainly do so.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say on what grounds objection is taken to the employment of coloured people?

Mr. Sylvester: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if he had been at Doncaster at the Yorkshire miners' demonstration a fortnight ago he would have found a coloured man walking behind his local lodge banner, as he has done for a great many years?

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary say, as he has been asked, on what grounds objection is taken?

Mr. Robens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Lieut. - Commander Clark Hutchison.

Mr. Lindsay: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary rose to reply to my question. Might I not have an answer?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will sit down perhaps I will rise, but not until then.

Mr. Lindsay: Further to that point of Order. I asked you a question, Sir, and I should be very much obliged if I might have an answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member remained on his feet and, therefore, I did not get up, but he asked a question, "Should the Minister not reply?", and the Minister has not replied.

Mr. Lindsay: But, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary rose to reply.

Mr. Speaker: And I called the next Question. If the hon. Member wants to question my Ruling he must not do so.

Statistical Digest

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to publish a further Coal Production Statistical Digest as was published for the year to December, 1945.

Mr. Robens: The Ministry's Statistical Digest covering the years 1946 and 1947 is now with the printer.

Colonel Hutchison: Will this take the same form as the one referred to—the one covering the period to December, 1945?

Mr. Robens: I am not able to say without notice.

Opencast Coal

Mr. Robinson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tons of opencast coal were sold during the last 12 months; and what figure was realised for this coal.

Mr. Robens: The tonnage sold during the twelve months ended 31st March, 1948, the latest date for which figures are available, was approximately 10,511,000; the average price realised was 395. 7d. per ton.

Mr. Robinson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the opencast coal was sold at a loss, how much of the coal produced during that period remains unsold and what is the reason for it?

Mr. Robens: In reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) we indicated that the average cost for that year of the production of this coal was 43s. 2d. a ton. The production for that period was 10,951,000 tons, so a deduction of one figure from the other gives the amount that remains unsold.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the relevant loss in the production of food?

Mr. Robens: Not without notice.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say if the selling cost includes the cost of transportation?

Mr. Robens: The cost includes all that is applicable to deep-mined coal.

Mr. Torn Brown: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the figures of output from opencast coal mining in the North-West Region for the six-monthly periods ended 30th June, 1947, 31st December, 1947, and 30th June, 1948, respectively.

Mr. Robens: The output from opencast coal mining in the North Western Region in the three 26 week periods ended 2nd July, 1947, 31st December, 1947, and 30th June, 1948, was 429,141 tons, 352,311 tons and 535,737 tons, respectively.

Mr. Brown: May I put two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary? Is he satisfied that the method of working opencast coal in the North-Western Region will

enable us to get the most coal at the lowest cost? This second question is: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the restoration of the land after the excavation of the coal is satisfactory and is in keeping with commonsense practice?

Mr. Robens: Answering the latter part of the supplementary question first, my answer is that reinstatement of the land is done to the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture and the local committee. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that methods of getting opencast coal have improved considerably in later years. The big increase in that particular region is Clue to better machinery and, of course, to the better weather that we have experienced.

Explosion, Thornhill (Safety Lamps)

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered the report of the Chief Inspector of Mines on the explosion at Ingham Colliery, Thornhill, Yorkshire in September, 1947; and, in view of the recommendations contained therein relative to the use of flame lamps locked only by a lead rivet, if he will consider making regulations prohibiting that type of lamp being used.

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir: but there is no need to make regulations prohibiting the lead rivet type of lock, because the point can better be dealt with under Section 33 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which prohibits the use of safety lamps not of a type for the time being approved by my right hon. Friend. It would not, however, be practicable in present circumstances to require all lead rivet locks to be replaced at once, and the Chief Inspector's recommendation contemplates that the changeover will be a gradual one, in the course of reconditioning or replacement.

Distribution Costs

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action is being taken to reduce the distribution costs of industrial and domestic coal.

Mr. Robens: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on 29th January last, to which I have nothing to add at present.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that some urgent action is called for in this matter?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of that fact and, indeed, discussions between the National Coal Board and the distributors are at present continuing.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Standard Petrol Ration

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will increase the standard ration of petrol allocated to motor cycles of over 250 c.c. capacity on a sliding scale as is done in the case of the more powerful motor cars.

Mr. Robens: No, Sir; in general, motor cyclists are able to travel further on their standard ration than the owners of motor cars, and this advantage extends to the owners of high power motor cycles who are, on the present standard ration, able to cover a greater mileage than the owners of high power cars.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think there should be the same treatment of grading allocations in the case of both motor cycles and motor cars.

Mr. Robens: There is grading into two groups—under 250 c.c and 250 c.c and over—which is a reasonable division of the cubic capacity of motor cycles.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Are there not four grades in the case of motor cars?

Mr. Robens: Yes, but, of course, there is a greater variety of horse power in the case of motor cars.

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will reconsider the allocation of petrol for commercial travellers in view of his decision to allow the standard petrol ration to civil servants whose cars are used for their Department's duties.

Mr. Robens: No, Sir; the arrangements for the issue of bulk allowances do not provide for civil servants to be treated

more favourably than other users who draw petrol from a bulk supply administered by their employers. As I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp) on 1st July, it is left to the employer to make such arrangements as he can with the individual motorists about the use of their standard ration.

Mr. Lindsay: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that commercial travellers are in a unique position in that many of them, with larger areas, find it quite impossible to earn their living with the ration as it is at the present time? Anything he can do to ease the position will be appreciated.

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir, I am in touch with the association concerned and will examine any suggestion they offer to me.

Mr. Jennings: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise it is a grossly unfair thing to impose on one section of motorists and not on another?

Mr. Robens: There is no differentiation in treatment whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (RURAL AREAS)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what degree of priority is being given at the present time to the provision of electricity supplies to farms and farm labourers' cottages in outlying parts of the country.

Mr. Robens: Connection of supplies to farms and farm workers' cottages likely to assist increased food production was given very high priority in the Electricity Commissioners' circular of 18th February, 1948, which laid down priorities for new non-industrial development. The detailed application of these principles is, of course, a matter for the area electricity board concerned.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as the rural areas in Wales are concerned, there is virtually no work being done at all in regard to the provision of electricity supplies and will he see to this matter?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Member aware that one difficulty is that where mains


exist in the villages the local authorities are unable to get loan sanction for the wiring, and is it possible for him to take the matter up with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to see if he can get over that difficulty?

Mr. Robens: If there are particular problems for particular areas the area boards will be glad to look at them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (CONDITIONS)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of overcrowding, bad sanitary conditions, and the lack of domestic utensils, at present obtaining in His Majesty's Prisons; whether, as a matter of urgency, he will order at once the further erection of hutted accommodation in prison grounds to house first offenders and the aged prisoners; and whether he will review the accommodation position in some of the Borstal Institutions and Brixton Prison in order to ease the dangerous position which has arisen in the prisons.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am well aware that the prisons are at present overcrowded. No substantial extension of the hutted accommodation within the existing prisons is practicable, and no accommodation can be spared from Brixton Prison or the Borstal Institutions, but an additional prison will be opened in August and negotiations are in progress to acquire premises for five others. Increased sanitary facilities have been provided at the prisons where necessary. There is no evidence that existing conditions are having an adverse effect on the health of the prisoners.

Mr. Benson: Will the Home Secretary press forward with the opening of prison camps based administratively on existing prisons, with the idea of reducing the present appalling congestion in prisons?

Mr. Ede: I am considering all practicable means of dealing with this situation, but, of course, it is not always possible to find a suitable site for a camp near an existing prison. Where it is possible, and there is a need for a more open type of prison, I should favourably consider the suggestion.

Mr. McGovern: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that the conditions inside these prisons are not adversely affecting the recruitment of prisoners?

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY COUNCILS (ROADMEN)

Squadron Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Transport how many county councils have carried out his instructions for cutting down the number of roadmen and have completed the programme; and whether there is any change in his policy owing to the numerous protests from country districts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): By 31st May, 45 county councils out of 93 had released the number of roadmen requested. Where councils have found difficulty in complying, and the Minister of Labour advises that in that area men cannot readily be employed on other work, it has been arranged that the councils shall make further releases only as they are notified by the Ministry of Labour that suitable vacancies exist.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that county councils who have carried out his instructions promptly are suffering from this lack of roadmen, and that in consequence many roads are getting overgrown, particularly at blind corners, a state of affairs which may lead to accidents?

Mr. Callaghan: A number of considerations are involved in that supplementary question. The answer to most of them is, "No," Sir.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities in the towns are protesting against the policy of cutting out roadmen from the staff?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend is well aware that this policy is distasteful to everybody concerned, but it is a question of weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY, AIRDRIE

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the completion of the Boots Factory at Airdrie, Lanarkshire, is held up for lack of material; and when this factory is expected to be completed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): It is expected that this factory will be completed by the autumn of this year. I understand that there has been difficulty in obtaining supplies of roofing glass at the right time, but arrangements have been made to remedy this and work has not otherwise been delayed.

Mrs. Mann: Will my hon. Friend tell me when Autumn begins and when it ends?

Mr. Jones: The usual conception of Autumn is from the end of September to December.

Oral Answers to Questions — VETERINARY TRAINING (UNIVERSITY OF WALES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will see that the University of Wales be granted the same status as those of Cambridge and Bristol in regard to veterinary training, particularly in view of the large agricultural interests in Wales.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The Question presumably relates to the Veterinary Surgeons Bill now before the House. I would refer my hon. Friend to the discussion on this question both on the Second Reading of the Bill on 4th June, and in Standing Committee A on 29th June.

Mr. Freeman: Will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the matter when it comes up tomorrow?

Mr. Brown: The matter has been very fully ventilated, I think, and I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the matter will be ventilated again and that he will not get away with it as easily as that?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD SYSTEM (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked Mr. Attorney-General when the report of the committee on the leasehold system and allied matters, set up in February under the chairmanship of Lord Uthwatt, can be expected.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): It is not yet possible to estimate when the Leasehold Committee will be in a position to make a report.

Mr. Chamberlain: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that during the time this committee is sitting there is an increasing number of people, particularly small business people, who are suffering under this system? Would he therefore tell the committee to do everything possible to expedite the matter, even if it is only by issuing an interim report?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the matters which are being taken under review by the committee are difficult and complicated. The committee appreciate fully the necessity for pressing on with their deliberations and of being able to report in either a final or interim manner as soon as may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDERABAD (ARMS TRAFFIC)

Mr. Wilson Harris: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he is taking to prevent British subjects from the United Kingdom, or United Kingdom aircraft, from taking part in illicit traffic in arms into Hyderabad.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Government of India have told us that they have reason to believe that arms are being smuggled Ly air over Indian Territory into Hyderabad. They believe that aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, manned by United Kingdom personnel and supplied by a United Kingdom company, are engaged in the traffic. Such traffic would be a violation of an Indian regulation. This regulation requires all aircraft which fly over Indian territory to land for customs examination at specified Indian airfields. Such traffic would also contravene provisions of the Chicago Convention, and of the United Kingdom Air Navigation (Consolidation) Order.
In response to the representations of the Indian Government I have caused urgent inquiries to be made. I need hardly say that the Government strongly disapprove of the smuggling of arms, and that they will take any action in their power against persons found to have


engaged in it. They are satisfied that no such arms or ammunition have been carried by air from this country. They will continue to do everything they can to ensure that no illicit export of arms or ammunition shall occur.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Satisfactory as it is to know that His Majesty's Government deprecate this traffic very strongly, can the Minister say, at the same time, whether he is able to use his influence to persuade the Government of India to abolish the drastic boycott existing between the two territories?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member will, of course, realise that the Government of India and the Nizam each say that the standstill agreement between them has been violated by the other in various ways; but I can answer for neither.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the things which the United Kingdom felt. Did not the United Kingdom also say that the question of the accession of Hyderabad to India should be left to the free unfettered choice of the Nizam?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have already referred the House quite recently to the full statement made by the Prime Minister on that subject, and I cannot usefully add anything now.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any possibility that arms could be sent from this country to some more convenient place and picked up there? Is there any danger of that? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing of that kind happens?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think not. I think the licensing system of this country ensures that we know what the ultimate destination will be.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman sort this out a bit? What is illegal? Surely it is not illegal to sell arms to Hyderabad? What is illegal, if anything, is crossing Indian territory without landing, but surely it is not illegal to sell arms to Hyderabad?

Mr. Noel-Baker: What I am dealing with and what the Question is about is the carriage of arms by air over Indian territory in violation of Indian and international regulations. That was all I was speaking about.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the crux of this matter the threat of military action by a much stronger Power against the much smaller State of Hyderabad? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get Pandit Nehru to realise that he should not do the things which he used to accuse us of doing?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his last answer meant that it was no offence to export arms from this country without a licence?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. Certainly not. I have already said that no arms can be exported without a licence, and we do not give a licence unless we know what the final destination is to be.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that his statement will be read in India and Pakistan, will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that it refers only to the carrying of arms and not to the carrying of food and other necessities of life, the shortage of which is a serious matter in Hyderabad?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a different question. The Question I answered was about the carriage of arms.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 12th July—Supply (21st allotted day)—Committee. A Debate will take place on Food.
Tuesday, 13th July—Committee stage of the British Nationality Bill [Lords].
Wednesday, 14th July—Supply (22nd allotted day)—Committee. A Debate will take place on Housing.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Leather Charges (No. 3) Order.
Thursday, 15th July—Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Friday, 16th July—Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Bill.
Report and Third Reading of the Development of Inventions Bill [Lords].
Concluding stages of the Factories Bill [Lords] if not previously obtained.
Second Reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill which is expected to be received from another place today.
Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill which is a consolidation Measure and is expected to be received from another place on Monday.

Mr. Driberg: For the convenience of the House, could my right hon. Friend indicate whether Monday's Debate on Food is intended to cover such matters as the groundnuts scheme and so on or whether it is intended to be purely domestic?

Mr. Morrison: I had the impression that it was domestic. I suppose that in so far as the groundnuts scheme would have a relationship to the domestic food position, it might be relevant. It is for the Opposition mainly, but I thought it was intended to be in relation to the British internal food situation.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is it not the case that the Food Estimates cover the groundnuts scheme? If the whole Food Estimates are put down, that will cover food imported from all places.

Mr. Morrison: I think that is so. I was only careful not to take liberties at the expense of the rights of the Opposition, but I think that is so.

Mr. Stanley: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a very unaccustomed mood, is aware that the Ministry of Food Vote is down today with the Colonial Office Vote in order that any one who wishes to raise the groundnuts scheme in

connection with colonial development will be able to do so?

Mr. Morrison: That is so. It has been put down for that purpose.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: On a point of Order. May I ask a question in regard to tomorrow's Business? A large number of Members of Parliament from Wales of all parties are particularly interested in an Amendment on the Order Paper to the Veterinary Surgeons Bill which will be debated tomorrow. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will be kind enough to indicate, in view of the engagements many of those hon. Members have in their constituencies, whether it is your intention to accept the Amendment in their names.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is probably referring to a new Clause which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time this morning—(Docking of Tails). Quite frankly, I saw it on the Order Paper but did not give it any consideration as to whether or not it was in order. I am afraid that the answer is that the hon. Member must wait and see.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sorry; I could not have made myself very clear. I was referring to two Amendments in the names of many hon. Members from Wales of all parties in regard to the inclusion of Wales in that Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I mistook the Amendment. I am afraid I have not been through the Amendments yet. I did not know until this morning what Amendments might be put down. One cannot look over things weeks or days beforehand. I am sorry that I cannot say. My first impression quite frankly was that it would probably be in Order, but I should not like that to be definite.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1948–49

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Colonial Affairs for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, namely:



£


Class II., Vote 10, Colonial Office
10


Class II., Vote 11, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
10


Class II., Vote 12, West African Produce Control Board
10


Class II., Vote 13, Development and Welfare (Colonies, &amp;c.)
10


Class X., Vote 2, Ministry of Food
10


Total
£50"


—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL AFFAIRS

3.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The Debate today follows a number of discussions in this House this week intimately concerned with colonial affairs. The place of American Aid in regard to colonial development and the status of colonial subjects under the new Nationality Bill have been discussed. The Committee have before them today a number of reports which set out the work which has been done in our Colonies during the past year and an account of the activities of the Colonial Office itself. There is a report on the administration of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts of 1940 and 1945, and during the year a number of White Papers have been issued dealing with various aspects of colonial policy and certain problems in various colonial areas. I feel, in view of the fact that these reports are in the hands of hon. Members, that it is scarcely necessary I should go into much detail in regard to the respective fields covered by these reports and statements.
It has been a crowded year of activity, both in the Colonies and in the Colonial Office. The work has been done in a world settling down from the repercussions of war—territories full of economic

uncertainties, sometimes of great disturbance, and Colonies where a great deal of rehabilitation and reconstruction work was imperative. As we all recognise, the range of interest of the House extends not only to the considerable territories in the Continent of Africa but to the more far-flung territories as well—the West Indies and the Far East. It is the responsibility of the Colonial Office to concern itself, too, with such small Colonies as the Falklands and their dependencies, the Seychelles, small groups in the Pacific, St. Helena, Turks Island in the West Indies. The smaller territories, of course, claim almost as much attention as some of the larger ones in the Continent of Africa.
I will not this afternoon review the past year, except to say that it was a notable year for a number of reasons. That year has seen important constitutional changes; the recognition of full self-government in Ceylon, the granting of internal self-government to Malta, and the ending of the Mandate in Palestine and the independence of that country. In addition, a federation has been created of the Malay States and the settlements in the Peninsula, a move has been made towards federation in the West Indies, and in East Africa an inter-territorial organisation has been created in order that the common economic interests of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya can be better served.
We have, of course, had a great deal of trouble in certain parts of the Empire. I shall have something to say in a few minutes about the present difficulties in Malaya. The House has discussed the problems, the disturbances, the outrages which occurred in Palestine. There has also been trouble in the Gold Coast. I regret that it was not possible for the report of the Commission on the disturbances in the Gold Coast to be available in time for the Debate today, but I hope that report will be available to hon. Members by the end of the month, together with a statement of Government policy in regard to the recommendations made by the Commission.
During the year, too, the Colonial Development Corporation has been established, and a large number of bold economic projects have been originated and many new arrangements made in regard to orderly marketing arrangements for colonial products. At the same time, there have been substantial developments


in social policy. In the field of higher education, a policy initiated by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), universities are coming into being in the West Indies, in West Africa and in Malaya, and a change in Makerere to the status of a university college is being brought about.
There have been developments in the field of mass education and labour legislation; campaigns have been conducted with great success against pests and locusts in Africa; there have been campaigns against diseases of all kinds; the working unit in Gambia has been doing very good work in the field of nutrition; a panel has been set up for improving the medical services by the sending of consultants from this country to examine medical arrangements and work in conjunction with the medical services in Africa—all these things have been done, besides a vigorous housing policy and welfare policy pursued in the various territories of the Empire. Therefore, I submit there is, as revealed in the report before the Committee, a considerable record of work, and I should like to pay tribute to the servants of the Colonial Governments as well as the Colonial Office itself, the Civil Service there, for the considerable work they have accomplished and the devotion which they have shown in the discharge of their duties.
Before dealing with certain broad aspects of policy, I should like to make a passing reference to one or two matters of some interest in the problems concerned with the Colonies. We have during the last two and a half years recruited for the Colonial Service no fewer than 3,300 men and women, which has meant an enormous task in examining applicants, sorting them according to qualifications and experience, and in drawing on a very wide range of experience as well. On the administrative side of the Colonial Services, the number of persons taken during the last two years represents no fewer than 11 years' normal intake. There are still large numbers of vacancies in the respective services to be filled, and it is one of our difficulties in the technical service to find men available to undertake these important responsibilities in the Colonies.
I should like to say what excellent reports we have received as to the quality of the men and women who have been recruited during the past few years. They have been undergoing training in the universities, the tutors there have had the opportunity of discovering their quality, and those men going through the first and second courses are reported as of excellent calibre, men who will undoubtedly do well in the Services to which they go. I should at the same time like to thank the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and elsewhere for the magnificent co-operation they have given us in the training of the men for the Colonial Services.
It should be remembered that no fewer than 96 per cent. of the men recruited for the Colonial Services throughout the Colonial Empire do not come from this country or the Dominions. They are recruited locally and form part of the local services. We are now trying to create new facilities for training some of these men who are recruited locally for higher responsibility and the more qualified positions. Some of them have already come to this country and we set aside £ million for such training. Meantime, the principles and recommendations propounded in the Colonial Office Paper (197) on the organisation of the Colonial Service are being applied. There has also been an effort to improve the amenities of the Colonial Services, to improve salaries and allowances and generally to ease the hardships which many of its servants suffer because of their complete isolation from this country and their sometimes serving in very unhealthy climates.
New facilities have been created for these men to enjoy refresher opportunities, so that they can come together after a period of service to learn more of their own particular profession or skill. We are also trying to organise a series of conferences so that the men may get a wider view of the responsibilities they are discharging in their territories. In this work of refreshing, developing and building up the post-war Colonial Services we have had, as the Committee well knows, the assistance of Sir Ralph Furse. As he leaves our service as a full-time permanent official, I should like to pay tribute to him for the enormous work and considerable achievement which the Colonial


Service at present represents as a result of his endeavours.
Last Autumn we held a conference of African Governors. It was singularly successful in the sense that we were able to bring into review the pressing problems of African administration—the relation of local governments to the home Government, the position of the Colonial Office in relation to the local administrations, and the larger constitutional and economic problems which are developing over that Continent. We have arranged for September of this year a further conference of unofficial representatives of the legislative councils of Africa. That conference will again bring into review the large questions of economic, constitutional and local government development. Above all, the conference will serve the great purpose of building up regional views in Africa in regard to colonial problems and the even greater purpose of binding the representatives who come here in loyalty to this country.

Mr. Scollan: Will that conference consider the application of American capital and capital projects to our Colonies?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is very little which the conference will not consider. Certainly the whole problem of economic developments in the Colonial territories in Africa will be on the agenda. One of the great advantages of such a conference is the building up of close contacts between these representatives from Africa and the people of this country and assisting to a better understanding and closer friendship.
It was suggested that I should say a word about the colonial persons who are in London for study and for work. There are some 3,000 students and, as the Committee knows, the Welfare Department of the Colonial Office is very attentive to the welfare requirements of these men and women. That department is responsible for hostels and a reasonably good life for these people when they are in our country; if necessary, the finding of work for them; helping them to find places in technical colleges and universities; and bringing them, as far as possible, into touch with constructive influences in this country. The universities are anxious that in their hostels the colonial students should mix freely with

people who attend the universities from this country and that every facility should be opened out so that the students shall see something of British social life and get, as far as can be arranged, into the homes of our people.
I now come to certain general considerations regarding Colonial policy. The aim of British policy is set out in the report which is before the Committee. It cannot be too often repeated, for the information of our critics abroad as well as of the peoples in the Colonial Empire, that we are in these territories to guide them as quickly as circumstances permit to responsible government within the Commonwealth, in conditions that ensure to the peoples fair standards of living and freedom from oppression from any quarter.

Mr. Gallacher: An old story, that.

Mr. Creech Jones: In regard to political developments, I would repeat what I said last year on this subject. I said then:
I am convinced that in this modern age, with its forces of nationalism and freedom, its economic changes, its spread of education, and the political and social awakening which is going on, we must adjust ourselves to a much quicker tempo of constitutional development than would have seemed practicable a few years ago. We have to experiment boldly, though not necessarily rashly, and to recognise that while the transfer of power to people not fully trained or with adequate experience or traditions to exercise it will lead to mistakes being made, it is only through actual experience in the exercise of responsibility that people can acquire a sense of duty and of service. The process may be a painful one, but the alternative of increasing bitterness and tension in the relationship of the people to the Government would be disastrous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 266–7.]
In pursuit of these broad purposes in constitutional and political change, we have overhauled a number of constitutions or territories in the past year; we have improved the basis of representation to the legislative councils and on the executive councils of the governors; we have increased responsibility by the people in their own affairs; in some cases we have introduced the Ministerial system; we have proceeded a long way in various territories towards reorganising local governments, and we have brought about groupings of territories for regional needs.
But obviously it is not easy in a brief period to transfer political institutions


which have grown up under the conditions of Western Europe into territories where social development is not nearly so forward. It is increasingly obvious that we must pay perhaps less attention to the problems of central government in those territories and much more attention to aspects of local government. That means that we must examine afresh some of the problems of indirect rule in the case of Africa. We must be more forthcoming in the creation of municipalities in other parts of the Empire and try to build up responsibility in government amongst all classes in all neighbourhoods if later responsibility is to be wisely exercised at the centre of government.
With that in mind, during the past year we have given much attention to this problem of local government. Lord Hailey has visited both East and West Africa and has examined again the problems of native administration and the steps which can be taken to secure a stronger system of representation and local government. Last year, we summoned a conference to this country of members of administrative staffs engaged very largely in work alongside native administrations. That conference formulated certain recommendations which we were able to make the basis of discussion with the African Governors when they were here last Autumn. It is clear that much more attention must be given to the growth of responsibility in local government.
We are improving and extending municipal powers, we are training local people for service under the local authorities, some scholarship holders are in this country at present, and we are also modernising native administration wherever possible and introducing more younger and educated men for service on the native councils. We are increasing their powers in respect of finance and the care of certain services such as sanitation, health, roads and education and completing the process of breaking away the judiciary from these councils and also giving them separate financial responsibilities.
It is also important that we should do everything in our power to create a sense of personal responsibility for social needs by encouraging the creation of voluntary organisations, by stimulating the work of

voluntary societies and helping the people to form organisations which do not necessarily need Government support, but which, in the field of welfare and co-operation, can make their contribution to the common social life. Accordingly, we are extending our interest and activities in the fields of welfare, co-operation and trade unionism, as well as in local government in order that the spirit of self-help can be fostered and greater opportunities afforded for social responsibility.
The past year has seen an enormous drive forward in economic organisation in the territories overseas. The idea of economic development is, of course, not new. It did not arise because of the shortages experienced in this country, or because of the conditions of Western Europe, or because of our difficulties in regard to dollars. The 1945 Colonial Development and Welfare Act was very much concerned with economic as well as social growth. Accordingly, in the 10-year programmes which have been submitted to us by the respective Governments of the Empire considerable provision was made for agricultural development, for roads, public works and utilities of various kinds which are basic in the growth of any community.
During the past few years there has been a remarkable advance in the provision of public works and utilities which are essential for the other economic activities of a growing society and for good social living. I emphasise this, because too often it is assumed that at long last we are waking up to the imperative importance of developing the Empire. The truth is that under both the 1940 and 1945 Acts certain of the economic requirements of colonial development were foreseen and plans were laid accordingly.
The Colonial Development Council has come into being largely for the purposes of seeing that social and economic planning is soundly conceived, that expenditure is wisely incurred, that sound principles of development are adopted in the Colonies and that there is a wise balance as between social and economic expenditure. As will be seen from the White Paper on the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts published recently that Council has had before it in the past year a number of important 10-year programmes which


have come forward from the territories themselves.
There has also been created the two Corporations concerned with enterprise in territories overseas. There is the Colonial Development Corporation, which is now getting down to its work, as well as the Overseas Food Corporation, which comes under the Ministry of Food. The primary purpose of the Colonial Development Corporation is to encourage public and private enterprise in our territories in order to buttress the economies of those territories, increase economic activities and strengthen the economic foundations on which the whole of the social life of the peoples of those territories depends.
We have set out in paragraph 13 of the report some account of the principal developments of the past year, and again in chapter IV of part II of that report further evidence is given of the work going forward. The Colonial Development Corporation has now finished planning its London machine and its overseas machine. It has gathered together a number of experts in order that the work may be wisely and suitably developed. It has been in touch with all the Colonial Governments and it is now engaged in discussing various projects, some of which it hopes to launch very shortly indeed. The responsibility of the Colonial Office is not to interfere with the day to day management of the Corporation but to facilitate its work, to see that it can obtain the supplies that are necessary and to help to maintain the liaison with the Colonial Governments. It brings under review the various schemes that are adopted and the principles on which the projects are based and it generally assists in securing the necessary priorities for the proper implementation of the schemes.
The Corporation has received from the Colonial Governments and from commercial sources a total of approximately Too projects in various stages of preparation. These emanate from almost every part of the Colonial Empire. There is a considerable number of proposals for small or medium size secondary industries and a small number of much larger projects dealing with primary products. Some of them are being investigated by the Corporation in association with commercial firms. The Chairman informs me that he is gratified by the spirit of co-operation and enterprise

shown by the majority of commercial concerns in the Colonies. The Corporation intends to devolve upon a number of subsidiary regional companies large powers of management of the projects within their territories. They will receive policy guidance and technical guidance and be provided with common services from a headquarters organisation.
I regret that it has not been possible to make all the progress one had wished in regard to some of the schemes adopted under the 10-year programmes. There continues, of course, to be the difficulty of obtaining the necessary capital goods and steel, the difficulty of finding the right personnel for some of these projects, and incidentally the difficulty of providing suitable incentives to African or other Colonial labour because of the shortage of consumer goods.
I should like to make one or two points in regard to economic policy generally. We must recognise that the results of all this work of the past year cannot be unduly hurried, that we must not expect any big dramatic results as the result of our efforts in this field. The physical conditions of the world do not permit of such dramatic results. It must also be remembered that in the expansion of crops it often takes some years before those crops reached yielding point. Further, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot hope for any vigorous colonial development unless we are able to associate the peoples of the Colonies with the projects which we hope can be established in their midst. Too often, in talking of colonial development we forget this essential requirement of understanding and co-operation from the colonial peoples themselves. It must be made clear to the colonial peoples that these development plans are primarily concerned with the improvement of their trade and economic status and with the strengthening of the economies of their territories.
Many of the schemes are concerned with improving their economic life in such a way that their own demands for food can be met and their demands for better social living in the way of education and health can also be supplied. Unless that economic basis is sound the various territories will not be able to sustain the standards of social living which the people are today demanding. Therefore, there is a considerable


advantage to the colonial peoples themselves from the schemes which are being launched, and it is hoped that in this very bold effort we shall obtain the good will of the local governments and the co-operation of the colonial peoples. Unless it is freely given I fear that colonial development will not go far.
The third point I desire to make in this connection is that during the past year we have also tried to secure a genuine measure of international co-operation in wide areas in regard to some of the problems which we seek to solve. We have had a series of conferences with the French, Belgian and Portugese Governments, and in all cases we have found a very willing and co-operative response from those Powers. They have their responsibilities overseas and also have the task of solving many of the difficulties which we experience in our own territories. A series of technical conferences has already taken place and many more are planned on problems of technical development, communications, health, etc. We have also entered into discussions with the French Government and the other associated Governments as to the possibilities of further co-operation in regard to development schemes. It is obvious that in vast areas such as West Africa and Central Africa the greater the degree of co-operation between the Powers that can be achieved in tackling these fundamental problems of colonial development the greater will be the result. I am glad to say that that co-operation has been willingly forthcoming and the three or four Governments concerned are working in a most friendly spirit on the problems that confront them in various parts of the world.
I wish now to say a few words about certain geographical areas of the Empire because recently those areas have attracted a great deal of attention. First I would refer to the West Indies. The arrival the other day of some hundreds of men, some from Jamaica, some from Trinidad, attracted considerable public attention as to the conditions operating in the territories from which those men came. The story of the economic difficulties of the West Indies is one with which this House is familiar. Over a long period Commission after Commission has gone to the West Indies to examine and to investigate the problems with a view to making

sound recommendations for the social and economic development of those islands. But it must be confessed that, in spite of the recommendations which have been made and the actions of the Government which have followed on those recommendations, many of the human problems of the West Indies still remain. The difficulties associated with disease, squalor, unemployment and poverty are there.
We must reckon, of course, with the fact that agriculture remains the basis of the economy of the West Indies. There is oil in Trinidad and bauxite and possibly other minerals in British Guiana, but broadly speaking the whole economic structure of the majority of the territories in the West Indies must be built up on agriculture. A great deal has been done in the past two years to expand and to improve the quality of production, to find new markets and to secure, by fair contracts, reasonable prices for the products which are grown there. As is well known, in the case of Jamaica there has been the disease of bananas which has occasioned considerable distress and considerably reduced the production of that fruit in Jamaica.
An economic adviser to the Government has been at work now over a period of some years. There has been a series of conferences on trade and agricultural development, but I confess that, as yet, our fundamental economic problems remain unsolved. The problem is complicated by the fact that there is an increasing population for which there is no satisfactory outlet outside the West Indies themselves. Several outlets formerly available are now closed to West Indian labour, and it is sometimes difficult to come to arrangements with the United States in regard to the use of some of that surplus labour. Consequently, we have a festering problem of unemployment and under-employment in many of the West Indian Islands.
We have also tried to foster a number of new small industries. We have met with a great deal of difficulty because of shortages of the necessary raw materials, but the problem of founding new industries is one which is receiving our active consideration as well as that of the local governments themselves. The Caribbean Commission has conducted an economic survey of the whole of the islands, not only


the British, but all the islands and the whole of the Caribbean territories, and we hope to have before us in the next few months a considered view on the possibilities of industrial development as well as other forms of economic development.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That Commission came back last January. Is its report not yet available to the Ministry?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am talking of the economic report which has been prepared by the Caribbean Commission. I think the hon. Member is confusing the Caribbean Commission with the Commission which was sent to British Guiana and British Honduras, and about which I shall have a word to say in a moment. I stress now the great difficulty that confronts us in regard to finding new avenues of employment for the surplus population, the underemployed and unemployed workers of most of the territories in the West Indies.
We sent a Commission to British Guiana and British Honduras last year for the purpose of examining the possibilities of those territories, whether new settlement was possible, whether certain lands could be opened up and whether new projects in regard to mining and industries could be established. The report of the Commission on British Guiana, has now been delivered to the Colonial Office, but we still await the report on British Honduras. Immediately that report comes to hand it is hoped that the two reports can be published together. The recommendations of the Commission in regard to British Guiana are already being studied in the Colonial Office and by the local Colonial Government and no time is being lost in the implementation of certain of the recommendations I hope that a full report may be made available to the House within a month or so.
I now turn to Malaya. The nation has lost a great and distinguished public servant by the tragic death of Sir Edward Gent on his journey to consult with me on Malayan affairs. No man in recent years has contributed more generously and devotedly to the rehabilitation and the reconstruction of Malaya, to its political settlement and operations for its progressive advance. He had a distinguished record, both at home and overseas, in war and in peace. He possessed not only courage and high integrity, but

also rare administrative qualities and a deep sense of disinterested service. The Committee will not expect me to be in a position today to announce his successor
We are confronted with a difficult and grave situation in Malaya which the Government do not minimise. I can add little today to the statements which have been made in this House by the Under-Secretary and by myself, or to the broadcast and other speeches made by the Governor-General. We are mobilising in all possible ways to defeat and to destroy this menace in Malaya, and I think that we are acting with firmness, with decision and with sternness. This is an attempt by murder and violence to destroy authority and order in Malaya, to reduce the economic life of that country to chaos by murder of the managements on the estates, both European and Chinese, and to impede Malayan recovery and create some other control over Malaya. In the past few years, we have tried in that country to overcome the difficulties which the war left us, to prevent famine, to remove the economic uncertainties and to rehabilitate the common life of the people.
It has been not an easy task to get some measure of economic stability in that territory and to obtain something like a settled economic order. It was on that background of uncertainty and of food shortage that a great deal of the present disorder developed. During the past few years we have tried to create political institutions and government based in the consent of the people of Malaya, to create a good public service, an effective police force and also to encourage sound trade unionism. We have sought to secure the conditions of orderly life by clearing up the arms dumps, or attempting to, and by stopping wherever was possible recourse to violence, intimidation and extortion.
The figures will show that in our efforts to secure the conditions of good order in that territory the courts have not been lenient in the administration of the law. There have been a considerable number of deportations of persons who have been guilty of stirring up trouble and encouraging violence. It is worth while putting on record that Malaya, after all, is the only colonial area in South-East Asia where no genuinely anti-European movement has emerged since the


war. Today in the Peninsula the three Asiatic peoples are themselves behind the Government in their effort to establish orderly life and to secure the progressive recovery of the country. Figures of violence, of murder, robbery and gang robberies have already been given. I can assure the Committee that the local government in consultation with ourselves are acting with full vigour and already have been able to effect a considerable number of arrests of those who appear guilty of instigating the disorders and attacks on human life.
I would say emphatically, particularly in view of the vilification of Britain—the wilful lies in regard to the Malayan situation which have been put across from Moscow—that we have not here at all the emergence of a nationalist movement which Britain is engaged in putting down. This is not a movement of the people in Malaya. It is the conduct of gangsters who are out to destroy the very foundations of human society—orderly life. We have no desire to create in Malaya a police state, nor are we doing so. What we are doing is to arm the necessary authorities with the requisite powers in order to cope with this situation of violence which has become too formidable a feature in the life of that territory.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any reproduction in Malaya of the political strife in China.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is true that you see in Malaya today a conflict which is not unlike the conflict which is going on in China. It would appear that the same kind of interests are involved as in China itself. I think that one can say that the strong action taken by the Government has increased and fortified public confidence. In the actions of the local government, the Services are co-operating to the full in the work which is necessary to squash this menace.

Mr. George Wigg: Can my right hon. Friend define the extent to which the local government have liberty of action?

Mr. Creech Jones: The local government may proceed under certain ordinances and emergency powers. As I shall show, certain of these ordinances

have been amended and certain powers have been increased after consultation with the Colonial Office; but there is the fullest consultation with the Colonial Office in regard to all new developments and the demand for new powers, and there is the closest association with the Services as well.

Mr. Wigg: I am extremely interested in this matter. My right hon. Friend in his speech constantly says, "we." He gives the impression that the local government and the Colonial Office are working in the closest possible association, but one feels that, should a sudden emergency arise, the local government must refer back to the Colonial Office. It is on that point that I want to get an answer.

Mr. Creech Jones: The local government are armed with the fullest powers to cope with any emergency now. There has been no withholding—

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can they use them without reference?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, but obviously—

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman says, "now." By that "now" does he mean only ordinances recently introduced, or does he mean that they can do it on the spot by immediate action? That is rather important.

Mr. Creech Jones: Recently certain ordinances have been amended as a result of consultation with the Colonial Office, but already before that consultation the local government enjoyed very considerable powers indeed. It was in cases where they were asking for certain exceptional powers that consultation with the Colonial Office and myself became necessary.
The Committee already know that we have strengthened the deportation and detention ordinances. We have tried to check the carrying of arms and to increase the facilities of search. We have powers to control the movement of vehicles and persons, to check seditious propaganda and subversive agitation, and we have adjusted the trade union regulations in order that the trade unions shall be protected from certain subversive influences from outside. The police, too, have been strengthened, and special constabulary organised. We have sent out a fair amount


of the equipment demanded, and in every way possible we have acted to help the local government. I would say again to the Committee that we do not take this challenge lightly. We are determined that this evil in Malaya shall be eradicated, and every step possible will be taken to destroy the gangsters and discover their sources of supply.
I conclude by saying again that, in presenting this review of our colonial territories and of the work of the past year, none of us are self-satisfied as to the quality and character of the work we have done. We are conscious of our limitations, the difficulties in our way, but I do want to say emphatically that Britain has nothing for which to apologise in respect of her colonial policy and her activities overseas in this connection. The effort made has been a very considerable one, and I have already paid tribute to the staffs of the Colonial Governments and of the Colonial Office. I feel that I should add that it has seldom been the privilege of a Secretary of State to place on record such a volume of change and achievement. I am the vehicle for carrying through certain changes at the wish of this House, and a great opportunity has been given us to carry through vast reforms and projects.
I am conscious that, in the furthering of this policy, all parties in the House are determined that this work shall be done. I, therefore, submit this report with every confidence that we are proceeding along the right lines, that our policy is soundly conceived and that our work is already achieving considerable results, and I believe, too, that we are gaining increasingly the confidence and good will of the peoples with whom we have to work. I repeat that it is of fundamental importance that, in all our tasks we have the full co-operation and understanding of the colonial peoples.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down and for the information of the Committee, will he give us a little information, first, as to the present number of unemployed in Jamaica, what proportion it bears to the total working population in Jamaica; and, secondly, when we can expect to receive the report of the committee which went out there last year and surveyed the situation in Jamaica, Trinidad, British Guiana and Ceylon? That report ought to have been

available a long time ago. The committee came back in January, and it is time that we knew something of what they have to say.

Mr. Creech Jones: It must be admitted that the report has been a long time coming, but the British Guiana report was submitted, as I said earlier, a month or so ago, and is already being worked upon. Immediately the report on British Honduras comes to hand, it will be made available for the information of the House. Delay has occurred owing to the illness of one of the members of the Commission, but I can assure the Committee that, immediately the report comes to hand, it will be published, probably during the Recess. In regard to the volume of unemployment in Jamaica, I should say that there are no reliable statistics on which one can base a firm judgment, but it is probably in the neighbourhod of 30,000, and that would probably include a large number of seasonal workers and a large number of under-employed workers.

Colonel Ponsonby: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Africa, in passing, only once in this speech. Has the right hon. Gentleman arranged with the Lord President of the Council that we should have a day devoted entirely to Africa or will African questions form part of today's discussion?

Mr. Creech Jones: Africa is obviously within the terms of the Vote before the Committee this afternoon. When one talks about colonial policy, too often one talks about Africa and nowhere else. I personally feel some regret that we have in the past devoted most of our attention to the affairs of Africa, and not sufficient to the affairs of other parts of the Colonial Empire.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: The Colonial Secretary covered a great many subjects in the course of his speech, and I should like to refer to some of them. I think my main criticism of his speech would be that he devoted a very large part of it to what I would call the machinery of government and did not say very much about actual events or human beings.
I hope we shall agree on one thing, and that is that we spend far too little time in this House in discussing colonial matters. During the past year, apart from the


Ceylon Independence Bill and the Overseas Resources Bill, which also dealt with the food supplies of this country, we have spent only seven hours in discussing the affairs of 60 millions of our fellow British subjects. When it is remembered that this House spent 95 hours over the Representation of the People Bill, which, incidentally, took away the university representation of colonial graduates, and 111 hours in discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill, I do seriously and earnestly suggest that there is something wrong in our sense of proportion and in our sense of responsibility.
I hope that whoever winds up the Debate for the Government will give us an assurance, for which my hon. Friend behind me has asked, that next year we shall have more than one day to discuss colonial matters, and that we shall be able to devote a single day to discussing either a particular part of the world, like Africa, the West Indies or the Far East, or else deal with some specific subject, like education, health, economic development and so on. In the space of time between now and 10 o'clock tonight, we have to roam all over the world and will be able to deal with nothing adequately.
I want to discuss four particular subjects this afternoon, though there are many other matters which I should have liked to raise if I had had more time. I would have liked to comment in more detail on what the right hon. Gentleman said about the West Indies. I would have liked to ask him why he did not say something about the recent strikes in British Guiana, and I would certainly have challenged his diagnosis of the unemployment situation in Jamaica. To my mind, the primary reason for unemployment in the West Indies is overpopulation. When we consider that, in Barbadoes, we have an island only the size of the Isle of Wight but with twice the number of people, we have an indication of the importance of the population problem. I should have liked to hear more about the Colonial Development Council, how often it has met and whether it publishes reports. I would have liked to ask why it is that so many of the members with actual knowledge and experience of economic and financial problems appear to have left it. I notice that, apart from the technical and official

members, almost all the rest of the Council are people with Left Wing views and members of the Fabian Society. There is not a single Member of the opposite political party on the Council. Surely it is not necessary to take this principle of "jobs for the boys," and in this case "for the girls" as well—and unpaid jobs, too—quite so far.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The reason why there are no representatives from the other side on this body is that the hon. Member who would, in our view, be very well suited to be a member of it, refused to take a seat on it. His reason was that it might inconvenience him in any criticism he might have to make of our policy.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I do not know whether it is usual for hon. Gentlemen to disclose what apparently were confidential communications, without asking the permission of the Member referred to. If that is going to be the practice, it certainly makes any confidential communication between Members of our party and Ministers extremely difficult. Secondly, I suggest that if these confidences are to be broken without prior communication, then it follows that the full terms of any communication should be given to the Committee. This document now having been referred to, should I be in Order in asking for it to be laid on the Table?

Mr. Rees-Williams: In the first place, I was rebutting an attack by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) who said that there was only one side of the House represented on the Council. That, surely, was perfectly in Order, and I take it that one is entitled, even if he is a Member of the Government, to defend himself.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Not that way.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I was not aware that any confidential information had been given to me. It was given personally, and I took it that that reason—there was nothing disgraceful about it—was given to me under no seal of confidence. I do not see at all why I should be precluded from giving the reason.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The Rule is that if a State document is quoted, it


must be laid. I gather, however, that this was not such a document, and, therefore, the Rule does not apply.

Mr. Gammans: I do not wish to spend too much time arguing about this point. All I suggest is that hon. Members should look at paragraph 302 of this Report, see who is on that Council, and ask themselves whether there is any unofficial member there who has not got Left Wing views.
The other point I wish to raise concerns the very unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous situation which is developing in the Seychelles, where a pocket Hitler seems to be working out his colour prejudice. I want to know whether the Government propose to send a Parliamentary mission or any other sort of mission to investigate the conditions in this very seldom-visited island.

Mr. Creech Jones: Would the hon. Member be a little more explicit? When he refers to some pocket Hitler, against whom is his charge directed?

Mr. Gammans: I am referring to the Attorney-General, Mr. Collet, whose conduct would bear closer investigation than the Colonial Office appear to have given to it.
I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would have said something more about the progress of getting a common currency for these Colonies which are linked on a fixed parity with sterling. There is nothing to be proud of in the fact that we have got this vast jumble of dollars, local pounds, rupees and piastres. I am hoping that one day we may have some time to discuss the Co-operative Movement. It is a part of the Colonial administration in which I am particularly interested, as for seven years I was Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned those interesting discussions which have been going on with the other European Colonial Powers. I think these discussions are desirable on public health grounds, because after all the tsetse fly and the malaria mosquito do not recognise frontiers. I think, too, that if we are hoping to get any sort of economic co-operation in Europe, we must equally aim at co-operation in the Colonies of European Powers. There is another direction in which the Colonial Powers might with advantage co-operate, and that is in defending themselves against the malicious

attacks which have been made on Colonial development in different parts of the world. The only other general question to which I want to refer briefly concerns broadcasting. I am glad to see in this Report that the Government are now allowing commercial broadcasting in different Colonies, but there is a vast leeway to be made up if this most useful medium of instruction is to be made available to the Colonial Empire as a whole.
The first important topic with which I want to deal is with regard to Malaya, and—I will be quite frank—I am not in the least satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. He does not seem to realise that both the Colonial Office and the Malayan Administration are under a grave charge of dereliction of duty, and he has got to put up a better defence than that which he has already made if he is to satisfy public opinion here and in Malaya. I would like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the late Sir Edward Gent. He was a personal friend of mine for nearly 30 years, and the Colonial Empire has certainly never had a more able or devoted servant, nor has Malaya ever had a more faithful friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman put these events in their right perspective and made it perfectly clear that this is not a nationalistic uprising in any sense of the word. It is not a claim for a greater degree of self-government; it is primarily a terrorist organisation, Moscow-inspired, Communist in origin, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not say so, considering that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has said it. This is part of a worldwide attack against Great Britain, of which another part is what is going on in Berlin at this moment. The murders are not only of Europeans; they are of Chinese as well, and I think the main object is to try to disrupt the production of tin and rubber which are, of course, the main dollar earners of the sterling area.
I would like to ask the Government a few questions, and I shall be quite happy to give way as I go along if the right hon. Gentleman would like to answer them. The first is: did not the Government know from their military and police intelligence of the possibilities of


an outbreak of this order? On page 31 of this Report we find this statement, which sounds rather hollow at the moment:
Despite some particularly brutal outrages in the Autumn of 1947, the country continues its steady return to the peaceful and secure conditions which obtained before the war.
What is the meaning of that in a Report which only came out a few days ago? I suggest that the first charge which the Government have got to answer is that they were caught completely napping. If they had any sort of police or military intelligence, they would have known that this was going to happen.
The next question is: can they satisfy this Committee that the local administration has been really energetic in searching for arms during the past year? Have the police been given sufficient military weapons? If so, why was it that I heard on the news two days ago that radio equipment and arms were being flown out to Malaya? Is it true that the training battalion of the police in Malaya have no weapons at all? Why were not the reserves of the Malaya Regiment, which were called up yesterday, called up two months ago? These are the men who have jungle knowledge and experience. Is it true that the planters were told to form groups to defend themselves and were told that they must provide their arms at their own expense? Why was it that the special constables were not mobilised at least two months ago?
These are the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has got to answer, and I do not think he will get away with the string of platitudes to which we listened earlier this afternoon. What steps took place in regard to enforcing the banishment of gangsters? Why was Singapore allowed to banish gangsters several weeks before the Mayalan Federation? What steps have been taken to recruit more police personnel—in the case of officers from the disbanded Palestine police, and in the case of other ranks from Malays? These are charges which are being made against the Government both in Malaya and by people here who know the local situation. When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope he will deal with those specific points and try to give the Committee a better answer than did his right hon. Friend just now.
The second point with which I want to deal is one to which the right hon. Gentleman has already referred—the Colonial Service, in which I personally spent 14 very happy years of my life. I am very distressed to read in the Annual Report that the number of outstanding vacancies today is larger than it was a year ago. A curious expression is used, "The recruitment drive goes on." That is odd jargon to use about the Colonial Empire. I sincerely hope it does not mean that one of the most interesting and responsible services of the Crown no longer attracts the best of the British race. If that is what it means, it is a sad day for the British Empire. In the old days we Cid not have to talk about recruiting drives for the Colonial Service.

Dr. Morgan: We always did.

Mr. Gammans: There are one or two points which I should like to raise about the Colonial Service, and the first is whether the Colonial Secretary is satisfied that the rate of salary being offered is adequate to attract and keep really good people? We must remember that in most of our Colonies the European Civil Service is the steel framework upon which the whole administration is built. What we want is not quantities of people but people of first-class quality. I think that some of the Colonies tend to recruit European officers, when locally recruited officers would do equally well, but the officers which we get from this country must be first-class men and they will only be recruited by proper salaries and good conditions. I have always believed that all European officers, whether technical or administrative officers, should be compelled to learn the local language as a condition of continued employment and promotion. I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us to what extent that is now a condition of service.
It would help recruitment, I believe, if there were better facilities for earlier retirement on a proportionate pension or gratuity at 10, 15 or 20 years' service, because there are so many cases where officers, for family reasons or may be for some other reason, feel that they must leave the tropics. They can only do so now by forfeiting their pension. It would be a very useful reform, too, if an officer earned his maximum pension after 25 years' service. There would not be the


same inducement and temptation by an officer to hang on when he could not expect promotion. I should also like to see the Colonial Secretary stress far more than he did what I think today is almost as important as efficiency, and that is to make it perfectly clear that promotion does not only depend on efficiency and keenness, but also on the willingness of officers to mix socially with the people of a Colony.
My last point with regard to the Colonial Service is that I am sorry that the Government have not been a bit more generous over Colonial pensioners. They are in a different category from the home Civil Service. They retire earlier and it is almost impossible for them to fit in to home economic life after 30 years in the tropics. They have to set up a home and buy their furniture, which is something the home civil servant has not to do when he retires. The shabby means test for the colonial civil servant is a poor way of treating men who have served the Crown so well.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I protested against the application of that means test both to the home civil servant and the colonial civil servant, both sides of this House insisted on retaining it?

Mr. Gammans: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not more successful, and if he cares to protest again, I shall be only too glad to join him in that protest. There is one final point with regard to the Colonial Service which I should like to mention; I should like to congratulate the Government on the setting up of these training courses—I believe they are to be known as Devonshire courses—for the senior officers. I hope this is the beginning of a staff college for the Colonial Service to which people of all races in the Empire can come for study and also to meet together.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned something about colonial students, and I am not a bit happy about their condition here in London. They number some 3,000. I am hoping that the tendency more and more will be for students to take their graduate courses in their own local universities and only come here for post-graduate courses. It is a very great strain on a young man suddenly to be dropped into London at an impressionable

age, and there is a danger that he will not see the best of our life, but the worst.
Is it true what the right hon. Gentleman said about hostels? Are our students in London being looked after in the way they ought to be? I feel a lot more might be done not only to look after their physical welfare but also to give them the chance to see a little more of the best of our social and family life. How many students, when they come to London, see anything of England except the wastes of Bloomsbury? I remember an Indian friend of mine telling me that he lived in this country for six years and that after he left it the only person in England to whom he wrote at Christmas was the landlady of the place where he stayed. He had never seen the inside of an English home. There are many well-disposed people who would willingly welcome overseas students into their homes if only the means of introducing them to each other could be devised. Let the right hon. Gentleman be under no illusion—if the Colonial Office will not look after these students then the Communist Party will. I was interested to read in the "Daily Worker" a short time ago that so many of the West Indians who had come over on the "Empire Windrush" were already happily placed in Communist homes.
My last point is about constitutional development. I read these words in page 1 of the Annual Report:
The central purpose of British colonial policy is simple. It is to guide the colonial territories to responsible self-government within the Empire.
There must be another aim as well as that one, and that is to hold the Empire together as a world force. If we just talk about responsible self-government within the Empire, we are in danger merely of voicing a platitude, because self-government within the Empire—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that that offer was first made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley).

Mr. Gammans: I am quite aware that that has been the aim of all political parties in this country for a long time, and I am not dissenting from it. All I am saying is that there must be another aim as well, and that is to hold the Empire together.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from a paragraph in the Report and if he does so correctly he will see that it says nothing about Empire but speaks about the Commonwealth.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, it is "Commonwealth." I am sorry. However, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that responsible self-government within the Commonwealth carries with it the unchallengeable right to leave the Commonwealth, and that unless we find a better formula than that, the Empire will disappear bit by bit. What we want today is some great idea, some underlying moral force, some dynamic leadership which will hold together this great association of peoples. This particular phrase by itself is merely a dissolvent. What is wanted today is some cement.
Let us be clear about two things. The first is that Great Britain is either a great imperial Power or she is a lonely, friendless island in the North Sea, unable to feed herself and unable to defend herself. I am very glad that many of the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Treasury Bench have recently discovered the Colonial Empire, though I gather some of them are not particularly proud of it. They remind me rather of Robinson Crusoes fascinated for the first time by the waving of tropical palms. I also am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not follow what the Foreign Secretary said a short time ago in trying to pretend that all our Colonial development started under Socialism. Any hon. Member who thinks that, can very quickly be put right by the President of the Board of Trade, who will tell him that the exports of Malayan rubber alone—all of it, of course, coming from private enterprise—are greater in value than the exports of all products from this country to the United States put together. The human race may have started from monkeys, but the British Empire did not start with monkey nuts.
The other thing we must realise is that if Great Britain cannot exist without the Empire, it is equally true that the Colonies cannot exist without us. Independence without security is meaningless. Not one single Colony today in the British Empire could stand alone without the backing of the Empire and this country. The alternative to the British connection

is not some "airy-fairy" Utopia, but anarchy. The alternative to the Union Jack in most parts of the world today is the Hammer and Sickle. I read in yesterday's paper, as I am sure many hon. Members did, the following paragraph about Burma:
Army and other communications between Rangoon and the major towns are now only by radio. Telegraph lines lie smashed by the insurgents. Railway bridges have been dynamited, and long-distance transport is practically at a standstill.

Dr. Morgan: Is this in Order in a Debate on a Colonial Estimate?

Mr. Gammans: I am using that quotation as an illustration of the point I am trying to make, that when the Union Jack comes down, anarchy of that sort takes place.

Dr. Morgan: Purely hypothetical.

Mr. Gammans: I do not think the hon. Member would think it so hypothetical if he had been in one of the trains that was blown up. I suggest to the Government that their main aim should be not merely to grant self-government within the Commonwealth: their aim also must be to hold the Empire together. We shall not do it merely by doling out copies of the British Constitution tied up in pink ribbon; and we shall not do it merely by pandering to extremists and abandoning our friends; and we shall not do it merely by washing our hands of our responsibilities as we did in Burma.
What is it we must do? I think we have to do three things. I believe that the conception of self-government that we envisaged in the Statute of Westminster may be getting a little out of date, and that when we talk about self-government within the Commonwealth we must make it clear it is self-government on these terms, and on no other. In other words, I think we may have to face up to two limitations of self-government. The first is that no territory can leave the British Empire when by so doing, it imperils Imperial strategy and Imperial communications. I do not see why we should have any diffidence whatsoever in enunciating that as a principle. The Russians certainly have not. It is on the principle of security that they have spread half way across Europe. The Americans have held on to Panama, bases in the Philippines, and our bases in the West Indies


only on the ground of their security. We who are very much more vulnerable than they are, need have no hesitation whatsoever in putting that limitation to any further grant of self-government. I suggest, too, that only this Imperial Parliament should decide the pace of constitutional advance, and not a politically conscious and vocal minority avid for the spoils of office. Unless we are definite on these two points, we shall lay ourselves open to agitation and also to blackmail.
The second principle we ought to consider is that we must get away from the idea that our only conception of self-government is one necessarily based on the ballot box. The ballot box, which implies the counting of heads—and very often illiterate heads at that—is very strong vintage. We have seen democracy disappear from many countries of Europe and Central and South America, not because anything was wrong with the constitution, but simply because the very essence of democracy was not there. If we go on doling out constitutions based on universal suffrage, literate or illiterate, without any qualifications whatever, then we are not going to get democracy: we are going to get demagogy. I heard the other day of a member of one of our overseas legislatures who, when asked for his ideas about higher education, suggested putting a second floor on all the schools. We have the genius for constitutional improvisation, and I think we might start to exercise it in dealing with the constitutional problems of our own Colonies.
My last point is this. There must be a positive as well as a negative side to our constitutional developments. If membership of the British Empire is to be something really permanent it must be anchored in the hearts of the Colonial peoples. If we want it to be a permanent association and not something with a connotation of inferiority, we have to get rid of any implication of colour bars. The King cannot have two sorts of subjects, first class and second class. How are we to get a greater sense of Empire unity? It can only be done, in my opinion, through closer association, not only on the spot but here in London. Is it possible to develop an Empire defence policy? Is there any attempt being made to create some sort of council, some sort

of meeting here in London which will make the peoples of the Colonial Empire realise that they share with us the strategic defence of the Empire? Do we need something more by way of an economic council here in London? Our real problem, surely, is that we have to create a sense of Empire citizenship, so that a man from Nigeria will talk about his status as a British subject permanently and with pride, just as a man would who was born in Yorkshire, or in Scotland, or in any other part of Britain.
That is the task, the creative task that faces the right hon. Gentleman today. It is a task that requires more than just woolly idealism on the part of any of us, or even a kindly disposition. It requires courage and leadership. It requires a sense of imperial statesmanship which appears far too seldom. But it also demands a belief in ourselves, and a belief in our imperial destiny. If we cannot produce those qualities, we shall have to try to fight a series of constitutional rearguard actions, without enthusiasm and without hope. All our plans for education, social betterment, and better health would disappear overnight in the darkness which would follow the fall of Imperial Britain. To hold the Empire together is the real task of the Colonial Office today. If they succeed in that task, they will not only be helping to maintain the standard of living of the people of this country, but also maintaining over a large part of the earth's surface the rule of law, of justice, and the moral influence of the only league of nations which has ever worked.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I would suggest to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who likened Members on this side to a number of Robinson Crusoes, that that simile is also applicable to the Opposition. Some of us are terrified when we see the footprints on the sand, which the hon. Member's party have made as our predecessors in office, regarding the Colonial Empire. We accept the simile in the particular sense that we are appalled by some of the conditions which we see in our Colonies all over the world.
It is not my intention however to follow the hon. Gentleman very far in his constitutional speech. I want to direct the attention of the House


to the condition of Hong Kong, and its relationship not only with this country but also with China. I read in the report with considerable interest that it was the intention of the Colonial Office to impress on our administrators in Hong Kong the necessity of a clear understanding of the conditions that prevail in China. It is along those lines that I wish to speak for a few minutes.
I remember quite clearly that when we were in Hong Kong a few months ago, a considerable body of local opinion, which was shared by a good many people in this country, held the view that the only conceivable policy for the future of the Colony was that we should, as quickly as possible, reorganise that territory in the manner in which it was organised before the last war. I feel that that particular idea which is widely held both in Hong Kong and in this country, is an impossibility under the present changed circumstances. If that idea were followed through, it would increase considerably the difficulties of the Hong Kong administration and also the difficulties of our Colonial Office. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that there are several important new factors in the picture concerning this Far Eastern country. I think that one of the first new factors that should be brought to his notice is that since the voluntary relinquishing of the extrality rights in nearly every other part of China, Hong Kong is in a far different position from what it was before the last war. The willingness to relinquish our extrality rights in other parts of China alters considerably the status of Hong Kong in the Far East.
Hong Kong today is to a considerable extent isolated in the China seas. That is an important factor in considering the future policy of the Colony. I think that this one fact alone will necessitate all the care that we can give to future planning, not only in our relationship with the island itself, but also in our relationship with Kowloon, the territory across the harbour. I have a particularly vivid recollection of an embarrassing moment when speaking in Nottingham on the need for the fullest co-operation and understanding between this country and China. I was describing the friendly regard that most of the Chinese have for us in Great Britain, and, while I was speaking a Chinese mob was almost simultaneously storming the Shameen

Bridge of Canton and succeeded in burning down the consulate. A few weeks before, as members of the Parliamentary Good Will Mission to China, we were sleeping in that consulate. [Laughter.] We were not sleeping there at the time of the fire, or it would have been most unpleasant.
I suggest to hon. Members opposite, who seemed rather amused by that reference, that if they followed me a little more closely they would find that I mentioned a rather serious incident in the relationship of this country and China. It was a coincidence that only a few weeks after that Good Will Mission the consulate was burned down by a mob in the Shameen territory. The disturbances were very serious. I am quite convinced that they were stimulated by certain elements in Canton who used the incident of the evacuation of the Chinese squatters from Kowloon as an excuse deliberately to attack and embitter Sino-British relations.
I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that that particular incident reflected a very serious feeling within China concerning our possession of Hong Kong and our occupation of the Kowloon mainland strip of territory. I feel that while the future of Hong Kong may not be planned at the moment, every care must be taken by the people of this country and the people in Hong Kong to recognise the strong feeling that exists among the Chinese just over the water from the Colony. Another aspect of the recent happenings in Hong Kong to which I wish to refer is the recently increased trade of the Colony, for it is a fact, according to the reports, that during the last three or four months the trade of the Colony has increased by leaps and bounds.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he refers to the trade of the Colony? Is he looking at Hong Kong as an entrepôt for the distribution of goods in the rest of China, or merely as a trading entity inside its own boundaries?

Mr. Harrison: For the moment I am looking at Hong Kong as a trading entity; and when I speak about the trade of the Colony I am speaking of the exports, imports and re-exports of the Colony, and treating it as an entity within itself. I will quote the United Kingdom trading figures for the last two years, to illustrate the


vastly increased trade which Hong Kong is at present enjoying. For three months in 1947, the trade of Hong Kong with the United Kingdom was £2,834,000.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but it is very important to get this clear. Is he talking about trade for local consumption in Hong Kong, or trade for distribution elsewhere?

Mr. Harrison: I am speaking about the exports, imports and re-exports of the Colony generally.

Mr. Fletcher: I give up.

Mr. Harrison: I am treating Hong Kong as a trading entity, and that trading entity has certain import and export trades, and together they constitute a good indication of the whole trade which the Colony enjoys at the present time; in other words, the whole trade that is passing through the various channels centred in the Colony.
For three months in 1947, trade with the United Kingdom amounted to £2,384,000. For the same period in 1948, trade between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong totalled £5,457,000—an increase of over 100 per cent. in a very short time. In the minds of some of us, and of the Chinese also, those figures raise a very knotty problem. The terrible conditions prevailing in China at present are, I think, well known to everybody, as is the importance of the government of China restricting and controlling, as far as they possibly can, any expenditure by the Chinese on non-essential imports. I wonder whether in this phenomenal increase in trade there is any element of trade which might have been encouraged by smuggling between Hong Kong and the mainland and up the river to Canton? I feel that for the future of Hong Kong this Government must encourage our Hong Kong officers to co-operate in every way possible to prohibit, or to restrict as far as they possibly can, smuggling between the Colony and the mainland of China. I say that because at this juncture in Chinese history it is important that there shall be as little leakage as possible in the shape of nonessential imports.
Another factor connected with the Colony itself, which will have a bearing on its future, is this: whilst we in this

country, and in our Colonies, desire to preserve our traditional policy of giving asylum to persecuted people, it would be advisable for our administration in Hong Kong to be very careful to avoid making the Colony a headquarters for all plotters against the authorities on the mainland. That will be a very important factor in the future of Hong Kong. They should not be suspected of offering asylum to or giving facilities for plotting by, subversive elements which arise from time to time in China.
There are aspects of these increased trading figures enjoyed by Hong Kong at the present time which should be of great comfort to the Chinese people themselves, for I believe that in the chaotic conditions existing on the mainland the facilities offered by Hong Kong would be of great benefit to the present Government in China. The Chinese themselves should recognise that the steady Hong Kong currency, and the shipping facilities of the Colony, can be used by the Government very advantageously during the present chaos on the mainland. It seems to me that that side of the trading position of Hong Kong has not been given sufficiently careful consideration by the present authorities in China. Anyone who knows anything of the position there would accept the possibility of a still greater drive towards reducing the amount of smuggling through the Colony on to the Chinese mainland.
I turn now to the position of Kowloon and the strip of territory across the water. I believe it to be true to say that it was leased to this country under the Convention of Pekin in 1898. To our Colonial Office I would point out that since that Convention was signed, there have been several revolutions in the country. However, with care on our part, and understanding on the part of the Chinese, that lease will be of credit and advantage, not only to this country but to the Chinese. Whilst the Kowloon evictions and the rioting over the eviction of the squatters reflect a feeling which has recently grown, that feeling can be overcome and a better understanding created between the two countries if care and consideration are shown to the old question of the lease of the Kowloon strip of the mainland.
As everyone knows, there has been a phenomenal rise in the population. The population figure is roughly 1,800,000,


and most of these people are Chinese. With this massive population in so small an area, it is right and proper that the authorities there should take every precaution to see that the present standards of hygiene are maintained. Everything must be done to persuade the Chinese Government and the Chinese within the Colony that these regulations are essential for the health of the community. If the question of the future development of Hong Kong is handled with some degree of care on both sides, I am sure that the future status of Hong Kong will not only be an asset to this country but also to the Chinese people. I believe that there is a great future for Hong Kong if only our people will do everything possible to overcome these varying irritants, which if they are not treated very carefully may mar the whole future of the Colony.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) will excuse me if I do not comment on his highly individualistic presentation of a totally erroneous description of the trade of Hong Kong. I am fortified in this view by the reply given to me yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State, when I asked whether any change in status was contemplated in Hong Kong, because he replied with an emphatic, "No." As to the question of smuggling, let me suggest to the hon. Member's mind, which is not so matured as mine, because I have been a resident in China, that it is not so much that smuggling is carried on in the Colony as that a little door is being left open by the Chinese, particularly in Canton.
Last year we were asked by the Colonial Secretary not to comment on what was going on in Malaya because the new Constitution was just being instituted, and it was obviously the desire of everyone that it should be given a fair chance. Since then, on repeated occasions during the ensuing year when I have asked the Lord President of the Council whether he would give an opportunity—Government time, because this is a question of Government failure—for the Malayan question to be discussed, I have been met by him in that characteristic way of his of trying to pass over a question with almost an air of buffoonery. What is the result?

We now find ourselves with a first-class crisis of immense magnitude which might have been avoided had the Government acceded to that request.
The Government stand fairly and squarely condemned for their policy of too late and too little. If further proof is wanted, I invite Members to recall the Question I asked on 30th June of the Under-Secretary who is to wind up this Debate. I asked whether anything was being done to augment our police force in Malaya, and I was told that
steps were being taken to recruit 20 additional police officers and the further expansion of the police force is being studied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 209.]
"Is being studied"—that puts the finger on the whole trouble, and it shows that the Government both here and in Malaya, are not taking this matter seriously enough and are not taking action in time. Is this the moment to talk about 20 additional police officers? This is not the time for a study, but the time for action.
I was in Malaya in the early part of last year, and I pay great tribute to Sir Edward Gent whose tragic death has deprived the country of his wonderful services. No man gave more time, thought and personality to pursuing the end he considered right. There was no finer man, and we all mourn his loss. But that does not necessarily mean I agree with everything he did, although any criticisms I have to make are not personal criticisms.
Let me give a description of what is the real problem in Malaya. What we are seeing now is not due to the Communists, although they are a large element in the situation and will certainly use it to their own purposes. It is not in essence a Communist movement, and we are throwing dust in our own eyes to use the word "Communist." I do not think I am likely to be accused of excusing the Communist Party of crimes of which they are obviously guilty, and I am certainly not qualifying to stand in the queue to become the Member for West Fife. As I was saying, we are blinding ourselves and throwing dust in our eyes if we call this a "Communist" movement. It is a manifestation of the local feeling that there is so much weakness in the centre, both here and in the Colony, that crime will pay.
The present set-up under the Constitution provides an opportunity for lawlessness to reign. It is not an ideological movement as yet, and it is not as yet a nationalist movement, but it is very unsafe to pretend that a nationalist movement cannot arise from it. It is the preliminary notice before we get the final notice "Quit Asia." We have had the notice to quit India, and we have done that, and in Malaya, for anyone who can read the signs, this is the beginning of a "quit Asia" movement. That is why it has to be regarded with the utmost seriousness.
This is a four-pronged attack. There is the Pan-Malayan movement from the Dutch Indies, where there is no war and yet no peace. There is the Pan-Asiatic movement playing on the Indian community, to which Pandit Nehru gave considerable impetus when he was in Malaya. Then there is the Chinese movement, which is a dual one, for the Kuomintang and the Communist are fighting out their battles in Malaya. Finally, from across the border in the north there is the Communist impulse coming almost direct from Moscow. These four elements have one thing in common. The have a common link in feeling that reprisals against them have hitherto not been of such a nature as to discourage their efforts.
In all these elements there is a proportion of bad men. We must be very careful in talking of the Chinese as being the element from which most of this lawlessness and banditry comes. Ninety-five per cent. of the Chinese are law-abiding citizens. Some have been very long established, in Malaya for 100 or 200 years, and others fit loyally into the new-citizen clause of the Constitution. In every one of these elements there is a proportion of bad men. It must be remembered that the bandits and thugs we speak of are not permanently bandits and thugs, because today a man is a rubber tapper, tomorrow, if it is a better prospect, he is a bandit, and the following day, if the game is not worth while, he returns to his ordinary avocation. That is the light in which this movement has to be regarded—organised banditry hiding under Communist cover. The quantity of arms and the number of bad people in the country have been the same since the end of the war.
Why, therefore, is it only recently that these manifestations of lawlessness have shown themselves? It is clearly for one reason, and one reason only: they have felt, with that great sensitiveness which they get from the bush telegraph or "grapevine," that crime would not be punished. They have felt that crime would not be punished even when it was committed for the second or third times. Once that happens, terrorism is established as a paying proposition, drawing more and more people to it, and becoming more and more dangerous to the general community. It is not murder that gets the headlines, or the spotlight; it is the terrorism, which makes daily life in huge areas of the country, in villages and towns, unlivable, that is the main trouble. We are offering the people of Malaya at present the inestimable benefits of "democracy," but one thing of which these people are certain is that they are being put under tribute in their daily lives, as the people of Chicago were in the days of Al Capone, and they want to be rid of that first. When they have seen the benefits of a strong, beneficient, just rule we may get on with the very important question of plans for introducing democracy of the utility export pattern.
There is the fatal weakness that it is only now that action is being taken. The Colonial Secretary used the word "now." This has affected police and others who are responsible for law and order. Let us put ourselves in the position of a police officer in charge of a district. What is the question that is in his mind? This holds good in every part of the Empire, in East or West Africa and the Far East. He has to take the difficult decision, on the spot, before the trouble actually starts, whether, in any action which he may take—and which may result in the deaths of innocent people; I am willing to admit that—he will receive absolute and unqualified backing. That is the root of the trouble, and that springs from something that comes from here from the Colonial Secretary. Behind all this is the feeling that the Government's system of Empire "load shedding" may well apply to Malaya and other parts of the Empire. It is load shedding and nothing else. There is this desire to get out of responsibility by introducing these manifestations of


democracy to immature people, to shed the load which we should have shouldered. That feeling passes from the centre out to the perimeter, and unless it is arrested, and visible authority is vested in one authority, which it is known will exercise it without fear or favour without some "fellow travellers," Left-Wingers, making a fuss because accidents have happened, we shall not get pax Britannica again in any part of the Empire.
Between the local authorities and the authorities here, we must fasten the responsibility for the present state of affairs in Malaya. It is a tragic state of affairs, and I am not yet satisfied that the means which will be used to put it right will be sufficiently powerful, or will be used sufficiently strongly. Let me say to His Majesty's Government that they will be doing a much greater service to the man in the street in Malaya, and taking a quicker step to make him fit for the next step forward in his own self-government, if they do two things: First, if they show clearly that they mean business, and that there are no strings attached to what local governments may feel they have to do to stamp out ruthlessly this daily terrorism. Second, let them examine again the working of the Constitution which they introduced. That was one of the wisest and best worked out things during the period of the Coalition Government which was carried on during the war, and in it Sir Edward Gent had a considerable hand. After the war it had to be modified, because nobody could guess the conditions in which it would be introduced; now, it has to be further modified. So long as there is no visible authority, with full executive authority, so long as there is firstly a Governor-General in Singapore, secondly a High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur and thirdly Mr. MacDonald—I cannot remember his title—with no executive authority, the set-up will not, and cannot, work, and calls for modification at once.
What will be the economic effect of the present trouble in Malaya? My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) pointed out, as I did recently, that the value of rubber exported from Malaya is fully equal to the total exports directly to the United States. Tin is equally important. It is obvious that this is a great dollar-earning arsenal of the

Commonwealth which is of special importance at present. We are already feeling the effects of the present situation in not getting the production of tin that we should get. The small Chinese producer will not buy the amount of machinery which he requires for surface tin work—small, but necessary, machinery—because he is in daily fear of being held to ransom, and made to pay tribute which will make his activities of no value. Until law and order are firmly established we shall lose every day a considerable amount of tin. As to rubber, we have not found a falling off yet but we shall, so long as managers of estates are living as they have to do now—half a dozen of them together in one bungalow, and having to go 40 or 50 miles to their estates. There will be the disintegration of the labour force on these estates and on the small Chinese holdings. That is the inevitable effect until law and order have been restored by visible, effective action.
One point of stability in the Far East at the moment is Malaya. Take a look around. Burma is in a chaotic condition, with tribesmen there at the mercy of the Central Government, which is no friend of theirs. India is not in a state of peace. Siam is gradually—and I say it openly—coming under strong Communist pressure. In Indonesia there is no war, but there is not peace; there is a long drawn out struggle, without arms being fired. In Indo-China the conditions are chaotic, and, again, the struggle is continuing. In China there is great chaos, both economically and racially; the anti-Communist forces are at present losing, and there is the possibility of China splitting. These are the chaotic conditions in the Pacific and the Far East. The one place to which everyone has turned, up to now, for stability has been Malaya. If we do not preserve stability, and restore law and order, we shall do the greatest possible disservice to the whole Empire. New Zealand and Australia are watching the situation most carefully. The Americans, who are giving us aid, will wonder if we are still capable of carrying out the functions we assumed in the past.
I was ashamed today when I heard the Colonial Secretary's pedestrian gallop as he took us around the Commonwealth. He spoke with no sense of the magnitude of the crisis. He showed no realisation of


what was at stake and what he was possibly going to throw away by weakness and inactivity. I was thinking of the people who for decades and almost centuries, have built up Malaya which, before the war, was a peaceful and prosperous area with the native population well in hand. I was wondering in my mind whether those people who spent their lives and gave of their best—those people of whom Sir Edward Gent was a typical example—will not haunt him one of these days.
Here, once again, we have an opportunity to do the right thing and to show that, by firmness and authority, we will not necessarily cut across the ideal of democratic progress but will build a firm foundation for it in the future. I say to this Committee, after many years of living in the Empire and the Commonwealth and with considerable knowledge of what has gone on locally, that the Government have brought us very close indeed to the brink not only of losing the economic advantages of Malaya but of disrupting the whole of the Far East and accepting the challenge "Quit Asia." If they do that, the unrest will not remain in Asia; it will penetrate from East to West. It will be a vital blow from sources from which it need never have come.
The Government can strike a blow at Communism, which is trying out the ground everywhere and seeing what is fertile ground for its efforts. Do not let the Government deceive themselves by saying this is Communism; it is not. This is lawlessness due to a disrespect of the law which is not being sufficiently firmly or effectively administered, and the cause of that I place fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. I condemn them for their dilatory methods in the past and their inability to realise the magnitude of the crisis of today. Let us hope that in the future we shall be able to withdraw that condemnation and congratulate them on taking the necessary steps, even at the last moment. They will have every support from this side of the House. Let them take their minds a little off the ideologies, and a little off democratic forms and voting, and do what is much better for the man in the street in that country—see he can live a decent orderly life without interference such as ought never to have arisen.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: I want to confine my remarks mainly to colonial policy in connection with food production and especially food production in Africa. The Debate has been going for 2½ hours and, apart from a facetious remark by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), there has been no mention of the groundnuts scheme at all. I want to say something about that.
I was in Dar es Salaam, Tanganyika, recently and I took the opportunity to fly up to Kongwa to make an inspection of the Government's groundnuts scheme. During my visit I was able to see the various stages of the work and to have discussions with the management and the executives on the spot. After the adverse criticism and forebodings which I had heard both in Africa and at home about this scheme, emanating from hon. Members opposite and particularly from the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), I was agreeably surprised and pleased by what I saw and learned during my visit. I agree with that well-known British farmer and agriculturist, Mr. Clive Higgs, who has also been out there, that the Government's groundnuts scheme in Tanganyika was one of the greatest conceptions of all time and deserves the good wishes and support of us all. That is my view, too, after having been there myself to see what is being done.
This scheme, with the methods which have been employed there, is the only way by which the great Continent of Africa can make any substantial contribution towards providing for the food needs of her own people and the general food supply of the world. In addition to groundnuts, large quantities of other much-needed foodstuffs will be grown from the rotation crops which are a necessary adjunct to groundnut cultivation. Since I returned people have said to me, "Did you actually see any groundnuts being harvested?" Yes, I did. I saw the first fruits—the first harvest from the 7,500 acres which were being harvested while I was there. I saw these groundnuts being put into sacks and sent down to the coast. This is the forerunner of a great scheme of production for oils and fats for the people of this country and for other countries, too, which will eventually, and as soon as possible, reach an acreage of no less than 3¼ million.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Did the hon. Member say that the groundnuts were being sent to the coast in sacks?

Mr. Macpherson: I saw groundnuts in sacks going off, presumably to the coast.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Was not the whole of that crop intended for use as seed next year, and not for this country?

Mr. Macpherson: Possibly some was being kept for seed, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of it."] I saw it going off, anyhow. What is more important, I saw groundnuts being harvested and I was very encouraged, because that harvest was the forerunner of the tremendous quantities which will be produced in years to come. Bearing in mind the fact that this scheme is being developed in vast tracts of tropical Africa and in virgin bush where there are no houses, buildings, roads or railways, and bearing in mind that the first tractors went into work only in July last year, I think a wonderful job has been done. The production of foodstuffs in Africa on the scale envisaged and by these new and untried methods is—

Sir John Barlow: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, could he tell us what is the average crop of groundnuts per acre?

Mr. Macpherson: Not without notice. But I should imagine it will vary from area to area. There are two different kinds of soil, as the hon. Member probably knows, and there are also different tracts of country embraced in the scheme. In every stage of the work in Tanganyika our men our there are faced with new difficulties and new problems, many of which could not be foreseen—problems of native labour, of housing, transport, of erosion and of water—and I should like to assure the House that in my view all those problems are being tackled by a keen, loyal and able body of men in the employment of the managing agent and of the Corporation in a manner which, I think, deserves the thanks and appreciation of the country.
May I remind the Committee that one of the greatest problems facing the world today is the existence of a world shortage of food? That has been said so often that

it has almost become a commonplace, but unless within the next few years some very extensive and new sources of supplies of food are found, and are planned to be brought into production, in my view we shall very soon have a shortage of food in this country, and in other parts of the world as well, which will be worse than anything we ever experienced during the war years. Familiarity breeds contempt, and this coming food shortage has been referred to so often that we are in danger of being complacent about it. There is more to be feared from a food famine than from the atomic bomb.
Where are these new and increased supplies of food to come from? In my opinion, after a lifetime's experience of food-producing countries and their possibilities, I doubt very much if we can expect greatly increased supplies through our normal and traditional sources of supply abroad. There are only two places where greatly increased supplies of food can be obtained. They are from this country and from our British Colonies, and particularly Africa. The great Continent of Africa with its teeming millions of native people, and its white and coloured races, is short of food now. Unless something is done about it the position will get worse. This may seem an extraordinary situation, when we think of the boundless possibilities for food production in Africa. Nevertheless it is a fact. It is a situation which, I am glad to say, is having the serious attention of the Colonial Office and of other Government Departments concerned.
Over the greater part of Africa the native population is still cultivating the soil, growing its mealies and other foods, by the same methods as were practised in Biblical times. A small patch is cultivated this year, another patch next year, and the year after, and so on. No regard is paid to impoverishment of the soil, fertilisers, crop rotation, or anything like that. Nevertheless, the African native, like people in other parts of the world, is gradually and progressively acquiring a higher standard of living. He is gradually, year by year forming the habit of eating more and better food. In addition the population is increasing. Native people, especially under British rule, are no longer decimated by war, pestilence and famine. We frequantly


find, as has been referred to by the Governor of Kenya in that well-known despatch of his, that the little patch of mealies and the occasional feed of meat is not sufficient today to maintain him. Outside sources have to be drawn upon.
Today, Africa cannot feed herself let alone make any substantial contribution to the general world food-supply problem. It will be within the memory of the Committee that two or three months ago the Union of South Africa appeared as applicant before the World Emergency Food Council with a request to be supplied with two million bags of wheat. That, I think, represents a shocking state of affairs. South Africa should be able to grow all the bread grains she needs, in addition to making a substantial export contribution to the needs of other countries less favourably endowed by nature. We are also open to criticism for our neglect of our Colonies and Dependencies.
It is true that the policy of the present Labour Government of support for colonial development puts previous Tory Administrations to shame, but I hope that the Government will not be content with the Tanganyika scheme. There is much more to be done, and there are tremendous possibilities for the development of production, especially in Africa. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is arranging to have talks with Empire statesmen, and I am also glad to hear from the Colonial Secretary that he himself is arranging an important conference this Autumn. May I express the hope that the food needs of the Empire and Empire food production will occupy a prominent place on the agenda?
So far as Africa is concerned, no large-scale increase in agricultural production can take place without Government planning and help. In East Africa and Rhodesia there are matters like water supply, disease and transport, which are outside the realm of private individuals to deal with. Especially would I urge on the Minister and on the Colonial Office the importance of transport. I travelled in Africa from Cairo to the Cape. Everywhere I found the same problem. Development and progress everywhere were being hamstrung owing to lack of transport facilities by road and rail, and at the ports. It is useless to plan any large-scale Colonial development unless

transport facilities are planned and provided at the same time. It ought to be a condition precedent of all development in those Colonies. The most important case of all is Rhodesia, where foodstuffs of every kind can be grown in abundance and where there is mineral wealth, including coal, in great quantity. Further development is almost at a standstill for lack of outlet to the sea and suitable transport facilities.
I commend the Government's policy of making a start on these matters with the Tanganyika scheme. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food did nothing else during his period of office he would be deserving of lasting credit for the support he has given to the project. One great point about the scheme is not only the oils and fats which will be produced for this country and Africa as well, but its great experimental value, and the lessons we shall learn there in large-scale agricultural production in tropical countries. The value of that experience cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. In Africa, owing to the nature of the country, much of the agricultural development will have to be on a large scale, and all new kinds of scientific methods of production will require to be employed. As in Tanganyika, the use of machinery will be essential, but bulldozers and tractors are not enough.
These vast, undeveloped, and of ten unpopulated lands need men and women, not just between the ages of 20 and 30 as has generally, and I think wrongly, been prescribed for emigration, but men and women of all ages. Knowledge and experience in Colonial Development are just as important as youth. There are matters like land clearance and large-scale cropping to be dealt with. It will be possible, especially in the African Colonies which I visited, to maintain large quantities of cattle, sheep and pigs for milk, meat, and other processed foods. That development will not be possible without the co-operation, the technical skill and technical resources of the white man.
The part which the British people can play in the development of these vast natural resources will not only make an effective contribution to our world food supply, but, in the process of opening up these countries, equipping them for production and settling people on the land, we shall help to solve some of the major


economic ills which perplex us today in this country.

6.20 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I should like to start by registering a strong protest against the inadequate time given to Debates on colonial affairs. It is quite impossible to cover this wide field in one day's Debate. How you, Mr. Beaumont, are able to control a Debate of this nature I do not know. More than ever it was in the past, it is necessary for the Empire and the world that our colonial territories should be given every minute of consideration we can afford. To give them only one day is at best a very poor compliment to them.
I propose to confine my remarks to East Africa. I will follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) in some of his points during the course of what I have to say. I do not by any means pose as an authority. All I can say is that I burned a considerable amount of midnight oil for six weeks reading all the reports I could lay my hands on and all the pamphlets that were available, and I have taken an interest in most of the Colonial Empire during the course of my service. I have motored in this part of the world from 6 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night for several weeks, and I will give my impressions of what I have seen.
As far as food is concerned, I agree with the hon. Member for Romford. One of the things that strikes one immediately, particularly when flying over that territory, is the vast areas which are given up to haphazard higgledy-piggledy cultivation on the tribal or small-holding scale of two to three acres, growing a little millet or a few bananas for the subsistence of the family but with no thought of assisting the territory economically and of adding in some way to the supplies of food which are so necessary in the world at this moment. It is very serious in cases where tribes are static, and it is even more serious in cases where they are nomadic.
I am not unmindful or ignorant of what is being done by the magnificent men in the Colonial Service. They work extremely hard, and a very high proportion of them—over 95 per cent. of those whom we met—were of the highest calibre. How-

ever, one is impressed by the lack of backing they get from the top. That is my chief criticism in this matter. There are the most excellent experimental farms and agricultural colleges, and the knowledge gained from them is invaluable, but one finds that that knowledge is not being disseminated down to the tribal areas or even to the local agricultural officers. Large numbers of agricultural officers had no knowledge of things we had seen 24 hours earlier at an experimental farm or an agricultural college. That is something which could be put right.
There must be better organisation and a greater feeling of urgency for getting detail down to the agricultural officers and also to the extremely intelligent African tribal leaders, who are prepared to learn anything and to try to teach their tribes, but they do not get an opportunity of learning what is being done. That is one of my chief criticisms. Until food is grown in those vast areas on more modern lines, those people will not reap the benefit which they could for themselves and the world will still be lacking a very large potential source of food.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring exclusively to East Africa or also to West Africa?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am confining my remarks to East Africa. I have been there recently. I have not as yet been to West Africa. One of the finest examples of what can be done in this way is the sugar plantation near Entebbe in Uganda. That was done under the stress of war but it has been carried on since and there are now 7,000 or 8,000 acres beautifully cleared and properly cultivated with satisfactory results.
Parallel with that problem—it is fundamental and it may seem elementary to say so—is the problem of the tsetse fly. One sees vast areas completely uninhabited except by game, particularly round Lake Albert. There is mile after mile of land growing most beautiful grass with little tree or bush on it, and yet there is not a soul there. There is probably a very good reason, but I should like to know why the groundnuts experimental scheme was not placed there where no bush clearing was necessary. I am informed that the climate and the rainfall are admirable for it. It seems extra-


ordinary. I know what is being done in regard to tsetse clearance, but there is not that sense of urgency which is necessary. The situation has changed completely since the war. This is a vital matter and if the amount of money now being spent is not adequate to produce results immediately, more money must be provided. This should be treated in the same way as the magnetic and acoustic mines were treated during the war.
Again, there is little dissemination of information. We found agricultural officers who had not heard of the I.C.I. drug. Admittedly it is in the experimental stage, but people whose job it is to study the tsetse fly should have heard of it. It is embarrassing for one to be talking to an agricultural officer and to mention the I.C.I. drug and to discover that one is talking to a blank wall because the man has no idea what one is talking about. Something must be done and it must be done very quickly. There should be greater co-ordination between the three territories in relation to this menace. One has great confidence that the new Central Assembly will see to that as one of its first jobs.
To go from food to mineral wealth, what is the position with regard to the geological survey of Tanganyika? Has it been completed? One is informed by responsible officers that there are vast potentialities of mineral wealth in Tanganyika in copper, bauxite, lead, tin, aluminium, gold and coal. What is the plan for the development of that wealth? I feel very sincerely that unless we develop it on a very big scale, we are asking for trouble. It is a temptation to somebody else to say. "All right, if they do not, we will." The initial step must be to deal with communications. If communications are improved the whole problem will be simplified. There is a shortage of steel, and on that a wide view must be taken. I believe that the problem is too big for average private capital. I should like to see something like £400 million sunk in that country. I should like to see the initial steps of communications and so on being undertaken by the Government, and the project run as a private enterprise concern on the same basis as the Sudan plantations scheme which has been such a great success.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman face up to one question? When he is dealing with that aspect, what does he think the African reaction would be to that proposition?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: If the hon. Member will bear with me in patience for a few minutes, and if I have the time, I have a few remarks to make on education which will cover that point. When, and if, there are to be any large new schemes launched, in heaven's name do not let the Government make the same mistakes as they have made in the groundnut scheme in Tanganyika. I am not one who considers that the groundnut scheme was a bad idea; I think it was a good idea and that it is the way in which the whole of those African territories can be developed; but, in order to produce a political effect in the country, it was far too rushed. There is a lot of moonshine and political ballyhoo, and the way in which it was started was not a practical proposition. It is beginning to go now, but 7,000 acres as against 120,000 acres!

Dr. Haden Guest: rose—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I think I had better be allowed to continue by speech for I have given way already no fewer than three times. I will point out exactly what I mean. I had experience of armour during the war and precisely the same mistakes were made in this enterprise as were made at the beginning of the war in regard to armour. There is not a single really well trained staff officer who could not have told the Government the way in which to start the scheme, and the lines on which they could have been a year ahead of where they are now. The first priority is workshops, the second priority is spare parts, and the third priority is training establishments, before one starts to pull a single tree or plough a single bit of ground. Had that been done, they would have been farther ahead than they are at the moment, and they would not have had to spend the year which they are about to spend on reconstruction.
That is my great criticism. That hon. Members opposite should go round the country boasting that this is one of the great Socialist achievements, is just sheer bunkum. The thing has been very badly handled to start with. In the


future it will reap dividends, but at what a cost and with what a waste of time. As an experiment, I repeat, it is a good thing it has been tried and, as the hon. Member has just said, I hope that the lessons learned will be carried into effect in any new scheme.
One word in regard to the white settler in the East African Colonies. I was horrified at the amount of ignorance that exists at both ends: on their part, of the situation in Europe and in the world and in this country; on our part, among the people of this country, what the white settler is doing in those East African territories, or what he has done in the past in the area which he populates. Will hon. Members please remember for one moment, when they talk about the "white highlands" of Kenya, that some of the best highlands are occupied by native tribes? The whole of that wonderful country east of Mount Kenya is a native reserve in the so-called "white highlands," and there is a great deal of hot air and nonsense talked about this question.
As I said at Question Time the other day, it is vital that something should be done about air mail newspapers to those countries. "The Times" air mail copy costs 3s. 4d., and nobody can afford to have it except the odd club and firm. The other daily papers are never seen at all. As to broadcasting, it was deplorable. A rehash of the B.B.C. was put out at a most inconvenient time in the evening by the local wireless station. That was all they had from which to choose, and it is not in the least surprising that they are ignorant of the state of affairs at home. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman gave a reasonably satisfactory answer to my Question, I hope he will see that in the near future something will be done about those postal arrangements.
There is this other point. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to let the white settler know in some way or other at an early date exactly where he stands for the future, because not one of the men to whom I spoke know. They are suspicious, they are worried, and they have a sense not only of frustration but a lack of security of tenure. They do not know what to do with their children, they do not know what to advise their children to do, and

they are desperately worried. If the intention of His Majesty's Government is to see that the white settler eventually disappears from Africa, they should say so honestly and give him a period in which to get out.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member? If he will recollect, a reassuring statement on that aspect of policy has already been made by myself on several occasions in this House, and also in East Africa.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope I am not accusing him unjustly of anything, but is it published in the form of a pamphlet, or is it merely that one has to rely on what is said in the House being published in the newspapers in East Africa? If the latter is the case, very few people will see it, and the matter wants wide publicity in some way because there is that feeling of insecurity in the minds of a large number of the white settlers.
My third point on this is the education of their children—again, a subject which I raised at Question time one day with regard to assisted passages to England for their children. Any advantages that they may have from low Income Tax are completely nullified by the fact that they have round their necks this enormous millstone of the expense of their children's education. Apart from that, it is unhealthy for children to remain in that climate for any protracted length of time.
I must say one word about the health services. I am unable to comprehend why it is that in one area one finds a quite magnificent hospital serving a small area and a few people and, in another area, either no hospital or else a dressing station. In Mombasa there is a state of affairs which I would not have believed existed in the civilised world. The hospital was old, and so overcrowded as to be fantastic. There were two patients sleeping in every bed, with one man sleeping between each bed on the floor. I think I am right in saying that there was accommodation in the African wing of that hospital for 100. I think the figure is even lower than that, but I will put it at its maximum, and I think that the African population of Mombasa is something like 100,000.

Mr. Skeffington: I think the whole area is about 90,000.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: That is a disgraceful state of affairs, having regard to the fact that a vast amount of money has been spent on welfare centres and beer halls, together with quite excellent housing schemes. It seems to me, however, that the list of priorities has gone completely wrong somewhere. Why anybody should consider spending a large amount of money on a beer hall when the hospital is in such a condition as that is to me incredible. It may be that the beer hall shows a profit to the local rates whereas the hospital does not, but that wants looking into carefully.
I have spoken long enough and must draw my remarks to a close. But I would say that the right hon. Gentleman has one of the greatest opportunities any Colonial Secretary has ever been given. I subscribe to the idea of an Under-Secretary of State for African territories, not because I consider that the right hon. Gentleman is not capable of dealing with the whole thing, but, with the stress that there is in our colonial territories I do not think that any man could deal with it effectively and in detail—and it is in detail that it must be dealt with—unless he has somebody whose sole task it is to assist him in that matter. We want new ideas—big, vast, new ideas. Some of these old "Do not let us do it now" people, and the sort of outlook which they represent, are completely out of date as far as our colonial territories are concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power to see that some of the criticisms levelled during this Debate are looked into and that something is done about them. Then, possibly, some of our "Paget M.P.s" will not altogether have wasted their time.

6.40 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking today and of following the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), who talked about East Africa. I asked him a question across the Floor because the situation in West Africa is so very different from that in East Africa and equally important, if not more so, and West Africa has a very much larger population. It would be impossible to generalise from East to West Africa or

vice versa—the problems are different. I admit that my experience of East Africa is confined to Northern Rhodesia, but I am told that that land is fairly typical and, like the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing. I have read all the documents.
I join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members in making my protest that we are to have only one day for a Colonial Affairs Debate. There is not the slightest doubt in the world that we need two. The hon. Member who spoke with so much knowledge about Malaya tempts me to follow him, because of its very great importance. But the question of tropical Africa is of equal—and in some ways greater—importance. It is quite impossible, therefore, to cover both sides of the two main questions under discussion unless we individually confine ourselves to one or other, and not for lack of interest in the other one.
I propose to confine myself to the question of the development of tropical Africa. That is by far and away the largest problem, and I believe the biggest and the most important problem, that confronts the administration of the whole Colonial Empire. To put the position into figures, in East and Central Africa there are 46,750,000 Africans, whereas in the Eastern Dependencies—Malaya and so on—there are only 8,500,000; in the Mediterranean Dependencies the number is very small; there are only three millions in the West Indies; and in the other parts of the Colonies very small numbers indeed. It will be seen that the overwhelmingly most important numerically and as far as population is concerned, and also economically because of its natural resources, is undoubtedly that belt of tropical Africa extending from West to East, which includes parts of Central Africa and has very close liaison with South Africa and the adjoining territories belonging to Portugal, France and Belgium, with whom we are now fortunately in very good liaison because the development of all that great tropical area is bound to react from one part on to another. Every part reacts on to every other part. It really should be considered economically as one great new world, open to conquest by our new methods and new technique.
I realise that the importance of this problem is fully appreciated by the


Government. I would say further, and partly in answer to what the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing said about the groundnut scheme being gone into without sufficient and adequate staff work in the beginning, that one of the most efficient and most experienced men in the whole Colonial Service—Mr. Wakefield—was sent out to do the preliminary exploration for this scheme. The matter had been surveyed by Mr. Samuel of the United Africa Company, who originally thought they would carry out the development themselves on a smaller scale but found it was too big for a purely commercial enterprise and then brought it to the notice of the Government.
Since then, step after step has been taken. If the hon. and gallant Member has not already read it, I beg him to get a copy of the speech made by Mr. Wakefield on 20th April to the Royal Society of Arts, in which he gives the history and the present condition of the East and Central African groundnuts scheme, which completely refutes his idea that there was any lack of preparation. It has, in fact, been very well done. I admit that it has been quickly done, and I venture to think it is time that things in Africa were done quickly and we did not wait too long—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I really cannot allow the hon. Member to get away with all that. What I said—a fact about which there is no supposition at all—is that there was no question of erecting workshops before any cultivation took place; there was no question of erecting schools for teaching, and, at one point, there was no water. That is what I call bad planning. Civilians may think otherwise, but I consider it extremely bad.

Dr. Guest: The whole development of Africa which is now proceeding was, in fact, referred to in the speech made by the former Colonial Secretary—now Lord Hall—in the first peace-time statement, in 1946, with regard to the development of the Colonies. He then referred to the groundnut scheme. The hon. and gallant Member may consider that that has not been a sufficiently long period of preparation, but that is because he does not understand or appreciate the really extreme urgency of getting on with the job.

If it had been purely a military operation, he would have understood it. This is not a military operation. I venture to think it is even more urgent than some of the military operations in which we were engaged during the war.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Why was it not carried out as a military operation?

Dr. Guest: I must point out that the policy now being carried out is that laid down by the Colonial Secretary in 1946, when he said that it was:
… to develop the Colonies and all their resources so as to enable their peoples …
—and I emphasise that—
speedily and substantially to improve their economic and social conditions, and, as soon as may be practicable, to attain responsible self-government.
He went on to say that that policy was
… wholeheartedly endorsed by the great mass of public opinion in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 238.]
There was a reference to the special question of Ceylon. That has now become a Dominion. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member thinks that is too quick? We on this side do not think so. We think the world needs rapid action. There was a reference also to the investigation of the production of groundnuts and to the rehabilitation of the industries of tin and rubber in Malaya. But the Colonial Secretary emphasised that the Colonies were poor and said that the problem must be attacked mainly by improving the productivity of the Colonial people themselves.
I urge the necessity of looking at the problems from this point of view, because we need to get into the habit of taking this long-term view and of working it out, although it is necessary from time to time to take action quickly and on a very large scale. I must point out that what this policy means, and what is now being carried out, is a very large-scale improvement of road, rail, water and land transport, development of power and water resources, education of a comprehensive kind, including technical, agricultural, forestry and mining, and the establishment of new industries. I mention the establishment of new industries particularly because I believe we are proceeding into an age in the Colonial Empire, especially in tropical Africa, of industrialisation and it will revolutionise


that part of the world. The Colonial Secretary went on to say that our aim was
the expanding prosperity … of the 60 million of our Colonial peoples."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1946, Vol. 425, c. 261.]
which would be an advantage to the wealth of the world. In the same Debate the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) largely agreed with the Colonial Secretary, but said that in the next few years the development should be not on the political but on the economic and social side and added that
for the vast majority of these 60 million people it means agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1946, Vol. 425, c. 269.]
The progress made and the rate at which it has been made since 1946 is certainly greater than at any previous time in the Colonial Empire, and greater than many people thought possible. Probably it has been greater than the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing thinks desirable. But this will surprise members of the Labour Party less than others, because a deliberate policy of large-scale planned development of the Colonies, running parallel with increases of political freedom, has been the policy of the Labour Party for many years. At the Labour Party Conference so long ago as 1925 a detailed policy, covering the Dominions and Colonies, and stressing the need for large-scale social and economic development, was adopted. The details can be found in the annual report of the Conference for that year and they will be found to embody many of the proposals now being carried out.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As it happens, that was exactly the year when one of the present occupants of the Government Front Bench said that the best thing that could be done about the Empire was to liquidate it.

Dr. Guest: But a great many spoke differently. I do not know what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was saying at that date. Perhaps he was talking Fascism at that date. I do not think much good is to be got by digging too far into the past.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member quoted that year.

Dr. Guest: What one man says does not necessarily involve everyone else. I do

not agree with the suggestion that is sometimes made that all good things necessarily come from this side of the Committee. In the past hon. Members opposite have had a great history of interest and energy in colonial affairs. Personally I welcome that co-operation and hope that it will continue. In the Colonial Empire we have a new world of our own which we can develop and from which we can create a great deal of new wealth. If we had not made these plans we should have been compelled by the hard necessities of the economic situation and by the very great dangers that confront our economic life to carry out this development in the Colonial Empire.
Changes, political and economic, of the kind now being undertaken on so large a scale in Africa have been proceeding more slowly over a very long period of time. We are only accelerating the tempo of change. The gold mines on the Rand and diamond mines in Kimberley have been with us a very long time and have made great demands on labour forces in Africa and from the tropics. They have made consequent changes of great significance in the African economy. In recent years we have had the development of the great copper mines area of Northern Rhodesia and lately the gold development in the Orange Free State. Over the whole period of this century the demands for labour in all parts of Africa down to the Cape have exercised a profoundly disturbing influence on African life. Now all the great plans for the development of tropical Africa West and East and Central Africa will make still further demands and will further change and disturb African life. In its main aspects the process is not one to be deplored, but is a process which needs control and management, and it should be watched with care.
What is the wealth of Africa? It is not gold, copper or diamonds, forests nor even the essential fats which only the tropics can grow in abundance—not even the great secondary industries which may develop. Its greatest wealth is in the people themselves, and the plans of development now proceeding and likely to be intensified are bringing the Africans to an industrial revolution such as we had in the early days of the 19th century. I have had experience of Africa for more than 40 years and I hold the view that industrial revolution must come in Africa. For many years I


have seen it coming and now its coming is being rapidly speeded up. I think the Government should realise the dangers of its coming. The acceleration of development increases those dangers. I will mention one. It is probable that Africa is now on the eve of a great increase in population, an increase such as happened in this country at the time of the industrial revolution about 150 years ago and in India in the 1920's. It is the opinion of Mr. Wakefield, who was the architect of the groundnut scheme and other authorities on Africa that that great increase in population will follow there. If it occurs it will bring about many difficult problems for Africa. Mr. Wakefield goes so far as to say in the lecture he gave to the Society of Arts in April this year—and I venture to underline his words:
I consider that Africa is on the verge of catastrophe.
He went on to quote the opinion of the late Director of Medical Services in Kenya who spoke of the probably gigantic increase of population and the fact that under existing circumstances that population could not be fed. He said that unless great changes were made we should
be left with pestilence or war as remedies for over-population and starvation.
Those are facts which I think should be taken into consideration. They are facts which show clearly how this industrial revolution is sweeping through Africa. Anyone who has any acquaintance with the industrial progress in various parts of Africa, which I regret to say is more often found in financial newspapers than in Government statements—and I wish it were equally found in Government statements—must realise the very great dangers which may come in its train.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Member has used the words "industrial revolution." Will he back that up by saying what industries in Central, West or East Africa are progressing on anything like a scale which justifies that?

Dr. Guest: Certainly, I will endeavour to do that, and I think I can. As the hon. Member knows, in the Rand gold mines and Kimberley, labour has been recruited from the tropical areas of Africa very largely. In the 1930's we had the opening up of the great industry of copper mining in Northern Rhodesia. I visited the place

when it was opening up and there also large numbers of people were being drawn in. In West Africa there are gold mines, diamond mines, iron mines and many other kinds of mines and large industrial undertakings and railways, and this is all industrial organisation which is growing up.

Mr. Dumpleton: Surely, when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the industrial revolution and mentions gold mines and industrial development in West Africa, he should speak of them in proportion to the whole agricultural economy. Surely, what he is saying is complete rubbish.

Dr. Guest: I am very glad to be criticised from this side of the Committee as well as the other side; it gives me a feeling of security, and I know where I stand. What is happening is that the form of native labour in Africa is being revolutionised and broken up by the demands of these great industries in different parts of Africa. They are destroying the natural and primitive communal land economy, and that is an industrial revolution which is proceeding very rapidly, whether my hon. Friend likes it or not.

Sir William Darling: Only 200,000 men are to be employed.

Dr. Guest: If the hon. Gentleman will examine the large number of industries which are scattered about in West, East and Central Africa, and others which will undoubtedly develop as a result of this great groundnut scheme, he will see that there will be a great industrialisation. Incidentally, the groundnut scheme itself, which is intended to feed and help the Africans as well as the people in Europe, means the industrialisation of agriculture. It means departing altogether from the old primitive method of agriculture, and adopting the new method, and that is the only way in which large populations in Africa can possibly be provided for in the future, by a new form of agriculture.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The figure given for the employment in the groundnut scheme was 30,000 natives. I do not think that can be taken as a sign of industrial revolution. If one takes agriculture, which is the only example given by the hon. Gentleman, and subtracts that—it has


not attracted many more people—it makes the hon. Gentleman's argument completely wrong.

Dr. Guest: If the hon. Gentleman studies the question, he will find that I am not wrong. I am looking a few years ahead.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The Einstein theory!

Dr. Guest: I am looking four, five or perhaps 10 years ahead, and I think it is highly desirable that any Government should—I am sure that this Government will—look ahead that far in order to see what changes should be brought about. I have seen in South Africa the complete demoralisation of African life created by industrial conditions. I know a certain number of hon. Members opposite laugh at this. They are insensitive to African conditions. They regard the degradation of Africans in South Africa as a matter of amusement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Who are they?

Dr. Guest: Anyone who knows the conditions of the Africans, who lives in association with the towns in South Africa, as I have—I have worked in them, I have been a doctor there and I have seen what they do; the conditions are worse now than they were—will know that they are so utterly bad that they are a degradation of the whole of the African people in those areas. What we are in danger of in this development of tropical Africa if we do not take adequate steps in advance, is producing the same kind of demoralisation among the Africans in the tropics as already exists in the locations, as they are called, where the Africans live around Cape Town, Bloemfontein or in the Transvaal. Those are conditions of demoralisation, and that is the result of industrialisation in the economic sense of the word.
I hope—and I am not addressing myself to hon. Members opposite because I do not think they would sympathise—that the Government will not allow the native African in tropical Africa to be alienated from the land which, to a very large extent, is still under some form of communal ownership. I hope the Government will decide that no land at present held in communal ownership in any part of Africa shall be alienated from the people, and that they will bring back to

common ownership any land which they can and which has recently been alienated. I hope they will also undertake a great programme of food production by Africa on the lines of modernised and mechanically equipped agriculture wherever it is possible, because I believe that the prophecy of Mr. Wakefield, who considers that Africa is in great danger at the present time, and the prophecies of the competent medical authorities are true, and that Africa is in danger of increasing its population enormously and of having inadequate food to support that population.
We ought to keep the majority of Africans on the land, and we ought to improve their conditions and amenities and add secondary industries. We cannot get away from the fact that we shall have to add considerable secondary industries, and we shall have to proceed on this path of industrialisation. In any large-scale projects which are brought forward, I want the Government to bear in mind the necessity of making the least disturbance in the African way of life, and to exercise rigid controls over conditions in the recruitment of labour, both as to time of absence from their homes and rates and conditions of remuneration in their place of work. To make Africa safe for the Africans and avoid a disaster which some observers fear, the plan should be to bring a democratic Socialism to the Africans and build it up on the basis of of the Africans' own institutions. We should guard the common ownership of land in Africa, and vest it in the Africans, and on that structure a great civilisation can be built.
If hon. Members opposite think that I have exaggerated, I suggest that they get hold of a book which has been published recently in South Africa under the title of "When Smuts Goes." It is a book written by a lecturer of history at the Witwatersrand University. He points out what will happen when Smuts goes, which he thought would be 1952 and not 1948, when the reactionary Government came into office and they proceeded to go on with their reactionary policy—how by accentuating the present degree of debasement of the industrialisation system in South Africa and its effect on the natives, they would bring about a complete wiping out of the white civilization—

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. I would like to know whether it is really in Order for the affairs of a Dominion like South Africa to be discussed in a Colonial Debate, when so many of us are trying to get a few words in about the Colonies?

Dr. Guest: I am sorry if I have disturbed my hon. Friend about this subject longer than I should have done, but he has done the same to me in the past. I want to end by saying that bold Socialist planning now will make Africa a place of peace. If we do not have that we shall get disturbances such as are now going on in the Far East. By bold Socialist planning we can have peace and prosperity; we can make a great contribution to the stabilisation and improvement of the world and create a great deal of new wealth in the world which is urgently needed.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the exceptional number of hon. Members who obviously wish to speak in this Debate, I propose to confine myself to a single subject and to occupy only a few moments. I hope the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) will excuse me if I do not attempt to follow him in his rather unconvincing argument. All I would say about his speech is that if the bold Socialist plans such as he suggested and such as we have seen in the past few years are carried out in the future with as much calamity as they bring now, it is a bad look-out for the Colonies.
I want to speak about British Guiana, about which the Under-Secretary made a statement yesterday—or, rather, he was prevented by the Lord President from making a statement which certainly ought to have been made public to the House It is apparent from that statement, as we have seen it recorded in HANSARD today, that a serious situation still exists in that British Colony. A strike of considerable dimensions has been going on for three months, and apparently it is still continuing. Attaching to the strike, and surrounding it are very difficult and disturbing social and political features. The strike started at the end of April. From the start it was clearly a political agitation organised by Communists, fellow travellers and other good-for-nothings who

hang about the roads and bridges on the coast. The agitation was designed not to improve the social conditions of the workers at all, but to incite a revolutionary spirit among all those who labour on the sugar estates, and to cause chaos on those estates.
That I am right in so describing the source of the trouble is proved by the fact that even by the middle of June on the seven affected estates the great majority of workers were quite content to go on working, showing in that way that they had no sympathy with the organisers of the trouble and that they were generally satisfied with the conditions agreed upon between their own established union and the sugar estate managers. As I say, the agitation was obviously political from the start: if there is any doubt about that, the terms put forward by the representative of the agitators in the Assembly of British Guiana is proof of it. Yet, though that was so, and though it continued, with growing intimidation of the workers and with outrages in different parts of the Colony, no effective action was taken by the local government until the 16th June, nearly eight weeks after the trouble had started, when at that time the area was what is called "declared," and armed protection provided for some of the estates.
What had happened up to that time? The Communist agitators were allowed to hold meetings, and I believe are still allowed to hold meetings in the eastern part of the Colony, quite freely along the coast roads, where they incite anybody and everybody with whom they come into contact. They issue the most poisonous propaganda which I have seen—newspapers which I believe might be banned even in this country—with apparently the greatest freedom. These journals are being issued inciting people to all kinds of trouble, to withdraw their labour, to demonstrate against the estate managers and in every possible way to cause disturbance. Telephone lines were cut—I have letters and messages here from residents—lights were put out, European overseers were beaten up, often with considerable damage to their bodies and some of them may still be in hospital. Estate headquarters were threatened. Ultimately on 16th June the trouble culminated in a mass attack by a crowd armed with sticks, missiles and other


weapons, who sought to attack the sugar estate at Enmore. They were prevented by a small body of police, who ultimately had to fire to protect their own lives, and a number of the crowd were killed.

Dr. Morgan: Which particular estate is this to which the hon. Member is referring?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will find it all in the statement of the Under-Secretary yesterday, and that of the right hon. Gentleman on 23rd June.
It was only then, after all this trouble had been going on for eight weeks, that the area was "declared" which is to say, I suppose, that a state of emergency was proclaimed, and some armed protection was given to the estate. I must ask the Under-Secretary why did he delay, why did the local government delay for so long? They had been well warned of these dangers. Those responsible in British Guiana have time and and again approached the Governor and begged him to take the necessary protective action, and yet nothing whatever was done. Did the local Governor make contact with the Colonial Office? Did the Secretary of State know about this? Was he responsible for no action being taken, or is the local Governor responsible? We ought to know, because the lives and property of British citizens were, and still are, in peril. The hon. Member for North Islington spoke of the need for rapid action. I am asking for that. I am complaining that in this case no rapid action was taken.
I will put another question. Was the action taken on 16th June adequate? Is it adequate yet? Ten days later, on 26th June the same poisonous propaganda was still circulating. Decent workers on the estates—I have full particulars here—were so intimidated that the management had to stop operating on the estate at all. I understand that on one estate six armed policemen have been provided to look after and protect a rum store worth almost a million pounds, and on that estate five thousand people live. That cannot be described as provocation—six armed men responsible for guarding all that.
According to my latest information white women and children are in terror of their lives. I have a letter from one woman, the wife of an estate manager,

who writes that for ten weeks she has been unable to leave her house because of the danger of attack from this lawless element in the country. According to the statement of the Under-Secretary yesterday the strike goes on, the same strike on the same estates continues. I have been there and I saw a little of it, and I ask the Colonial Secretary seriously to consider that if this situation is not dealt with, the trouble may spread all over British Guiana. It may indeed spread to the whole of the West Indies. We know the difficult and explosive material to be found in other parts of the West Indies, particularly Trinidad and Jamaica.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to watch what is happening. We have seen what happened in Malaya. Strong action has been taken there and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that unless strong action is taken to the same extent in British Guiana we are in for serious trouble. Apparently a commission of inquiry was set up by the local Governor, but that was three weeks ago and this is a matter of urgency. Why has the Commission not reported? The Government surely ought to know the result of that inquiry when so much hangs upon it I want to insist upon the seriousness of this matter. It is just another case and another example of the truth that is dawning on the whole country and on members of the whole Colonial Empire, that this Government is making a poor job of its responsibilities, because it is failing in its elementary duty of preserving peace and security for the peoples of the Colonies. The only thing I can hope for is that an early opportunity may be given to the British people to change this Government.

7.18 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: If I do not follow the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), it is not because I do not very strongly sympathise with the case he has made. It is because I wish to lay a little fresh emphasis on a case already made, that is the case of Malaya, and what I believe to be the most urgent and most dangerous situation existing at the present time in our Colonial possessions. The situation is very serious, and that has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a case of sporadic disturbances but of an


organised system of extortion, murder and outrage. The planters and their families, especially on the remote rubber estates, go in daily fear of their lives, as also do their Malayan employees.
The perpetrators of these outrages are not Malays. That cannot be sufficiently rubbed into the people of this country. Some in this country still believe—I hope and think that no hon. Members ate among them—that these people are Malays who are in revolt against foreign occupation of their country. They are nothing of the kind. The enormous majority of them are Chinese who came to Malaya originally in order to work there and who have taken to terrorism and banditry. As we have heard, the whole system of terrorism is Communist-organised. I believe that is acknowledged, though it has never been said by the Government. It is part of the general organisation of Communism which is worldwide and very dangerous—

Mr. Sorensen: rose—

Sir G. Jeffreys: I cannot give way. I intend to be very brief. I believe what I have stated, to be the case. I need not stress the value to this country and to the Empire of Malaya, with its tin and rubber both for home supply and also as a great earner of dollars, which are so necessary for this country. That, I would say, is only a selfish reason, from our point of view, for insisting on law and order being restored and maintained in Malaya. Apart from that, I stress the duty of the Government to protect the lives, the liberties and the property of British subjects. That is their absolute duty. It cannot be shelved or put off. It is also the duty of the Government to maintain law and order throughout the country and, indeed, in the first place, to restore law and order. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), there is the evil example before the people of Malaya of our attitude and our surrender in Burma and elsewhere. There is the evil example of lawlessness which has been condoned by their governments and which has gained the upper hand in Siam and in other parts of the East. The story has got about that we are weak and that crimes can be committed in British territories without being dealt with adequately. Weakness and indecision are

hopeless qualities with which to exercise government anywhere.
I was very glad indeed to see in the Press this morning the report of the broadcast by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald describing the measures taken. He said that more than 1,000 arrests had been made in the last three weeks and that the Commander-in-Chief was satisfied that, with few exceptions, the forces on the spot were adequate. I stress the words "with few exceptions." He also said that London had been advised of a possible call for more troops. I very much hope that no chances will be taken. We cannot afford to take chances. I hope that the forces will be adequate and that there will be no exceptions. If there are any exceptions, I hope that they will be made good at the earliest possible moment. It is certainly not fair either to the authorities or to the people on the spot that there should be a shortage of necessary troops.
The Government of Malaya were very slow in appreciating the seriousness of this situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) asked, were they not caught napping? Were they not far too slow in taking strong and effective action to deal with terrorism, outrage and murder? Was that slowness to take action due to the reluctance of the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office to authorise the strongest measures? Is it, in fact, a repetition of the weakness and irresolution which characterised the policy of the Government over Palestine? However that may be, it is certain that the only thing that can be done now to save the situation is to take definite and very strong action, to take it at once, and to continue that action without any relaxation whatever over a period until law, order and security have been definitely re-established. I emphasise the words "without relaxation" because the cat-and-mouse business—severity and martial law for a short period followed by some relaxation, which was the policy followed in Palestine in the hope that conditions would improve—is quite hopeless and useless. In fact, it is worse than useless.
I should like to know, whether, apart from emergency laws, full effect is being given to the existing laws of Malaya. There is a banishment law which was referred to by the Minister. Is that


banishment, or deportation, law being made full use of and put into full effect? Even if there is no direct evidence to convict them, bad characters suspected of being involved in subversive activities should be deported. If they can be deported, the country will be very much better and safer as a result of that action. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us how many deportations have been authorised and carried out during the past year. I should like also to ask whether the police force in Malaya is sufficiently strong, and adequately trained and equipped to deal with this serious situation, bearing in mind that the force had to be entirely reconstituted and rebuilt following the Japanese occupation.
It should also be borne in mind that, as a result of the occupation, the country is full of illegal arms. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that some of these arms dumps had been cleared and others were being cleared; but very many of them were raided and the arms spread all over the country before anything was done about it. Further, it should be remembered that there are armed bands who are more than mere bandits, who during the Japanese occupation were encouraged and instructed by us to carry out guerilla warfare all over the country. These bands are now operating against us. We have to tackle not merely bandits but guerilla bands armed with automatic weapons and with more than a little training in the use of those weapons, with a knowledge, too, of the country which is fairly intimate, and with all their native Asiatic cunning and ferocity. Let us make no mistake. It is a very different nature from a European nature with which we have to contend, and it is no good thinking that what appeals to Europeans will necessarily appeal to Asiatics. It will not. They have different standards, different ideas, a different sense of right and wrong and of civilisation itself.

Mr. Sorensen: Worse than the Nazis?

Sir G. Jeffreys: It is very difficult to compare them with Nazis, but they have very different ideas from our own. The Germans undoubtedly had different standards and different ways, but they were, possibly, of a standard to which we could make some appeal as Europeans. That standard the Asiatics most emphatically do not possess.
It is very necessary, in dealing with these people, that we should have not only armed forces but a very efficient, numerous and well-trained police force. I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will be able to say that we have such a police force, more especially as it has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury that a reinforcement has been asked for by the police and that 20 men have been sent. Something very much more than that is necessary; both adequate arms and police are required. I suggest that the first duty of this Government, which has apparently realised something of the seriousness of the situation—which on the face of it they did not realise to begin with—is to impress on the local government that they must at all costs suppress terrorism, restore law and order and take strong and sustained measures to that end, and that no reference to this country and the Colonial Office is necessary before such measures are taken.
Again I urge that there should be no weakness. We are getting a reputation for weakness, and for having neither a strong policy nor a strong force behind that policy. Weakness and irresolution were stated by Lord Palmerston, towards the end of his career, to be the worst faults in a statesman, but weakness and irresolution, more than anything else, have characterised this Government's dealings with all our overseas affairs since it came to power.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: We are discussing today the affairs of some 50 Colonies, and we have only a few hours in which to do it. I join with other hon. Members in suggesting that the Colonies should receive more Parliamentary time. In each of these Colonies, there is a Government, and in that Government there are officers of very high quality who are equipped with a knowledge of the problems of those Colonies which can only come from long years of work on the spot. I do not propose to give these Colonies advice about their local administration and political problems. I prefer to make a few remarks about what can be done for them at this end. Speaking from experience, I know that, in a Crown Colony, even if there is a Legislature with certain powers, there is a bureaucratic form of government, and it is absolutely


essential to have at the top, as Chief Secretary or Governor, or both, as the case may be, men of outstanding ability, of tried and tested ability, and not people selected by chance. If we have these leaders at the top, they can inspire the whole administration, but if not, the whole administration may be marred.
Some hon. Members have referred to the salary scales of the staffs. I know that there is a Commission investigating salaries in the Colonial Service, but in my opinion the high standard which has been reached in the past will not be maintained without increases in salary. In this country, the cost of living has gone up enormously, but in the Colonies it has increased much more, and it is absolutely essential to get first-class men, and in order to do that the scales of salaries must be revised. I know there are difficulties, and that questions arise between the local officers and the European officers; the difficulty has to be got over by expatriation allowances or otherwise. These men have to maintain two households, if they are married, and they also have extra expenses connected with travelling and charges of abode even though their passages home are paid for them. Because of these things, a revision of the scales of salaries and also of their pensions must be undertaken.
It has been an excellent principle in British colonial administrations to go in for decentralisation as far as possible, and much more so than in the case of other colonial Powers. At the same time, the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament. Another excellent system is that which has now been adopted on a large scale of having advisory committees here which are composed of people with great Colonial experience, or with non-Colonial experience, who can give the Secretary of State the benefit of their knowledge.
Some hon. Members have referred to various disorders in the Colonies at present. I do not propose to follow them, because I do not feel that it is a subject on which I have that complete knowledge which could only be gained on the spot after full investigation, but, if there ever was a case which showed the need for decentralisation, it is this. The people on the spot must have the necessary powers in advance for dealing with emergencies,

and I think that since the war they have had those powers; if not, it was a mistake. The decentralisation of power and responsibility should be placed on the people on the spot, except in matters of high policy.
Since the war, there has been an upheaval all over the world, and it has had a tremendous impact on the colonial peoples. They have seen India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon getting independence, and that has incited colonial peoples, who are human beings like ourselves, to aspire to independence. That is a constitutional subject in which the House is vitally interested, because in the last resort it is the House which decides what should be done. The policy of Britain has been the gradual extension of self-government so as to train the local people gradually in politics and administration, and the final aim has been complete self-government.
This has not been the way with other colonial Powers. We see around us at present other colonial Powers trying out some form of political union to tie up their colonies with the metropolitan country. Are they right, or are we? It is an important question to ask, because we are at the parting of the ways. In my opinion, we are absolutely right. Our policy is to give the people of the Colonies what they want, and what they want is not some sort of political union with us, but self-government in their own country. If, on the other hand, we adopted the other system of trying to build a political union between ourselves and our Colonies, we should attach 60 million people to the 50 million in these islands, and completely confuse our own politics and theirs.
In this country, we are very fortunate in having a profound unity without uniformity. It is based on an outlook on life which is common to practically all the people in this country of every class. Associated with us in the Colonies are people of totally different outlook; united with them politically that unity without uniformity could no longer exist. It is that unity which makes democracy possible in this country. I ask the Committee to consider what would happen if the political parties in this country tried to attach to themselves tens of millions of people from the Colonies. Our party system would break down, and to kill the party system is to kill democracy. I suggest that our instincts are wise—to give the colonial peoples what they want


and to let them develop complete self-government gradually in their own territory.
Earlier in the Debate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) suggested that we should not have done this in the case of Burma. Then he pointed to the disorders which have since occurred there. I, for one, anticipated those disorders. I anticipated disorders in India and Pakistan, but I was 100 per cent. behind Government policy in both cases. I would have liked to ask the hon. Member, had he been here, what would have happened if we had tried to carry on ruling Burma? Would the disorders have been five times greater? Would we have been the people to be shot at? And if we had finally re-conquered Burma, and that is what it would have meant, what should we then do? Give them self-government or not?
The hon. Member for Hornsey seemed to indicate that what we should work for is a limited form of self-government, that there should be a form of self-government without the power of quitting the Commonwealth and Empire. If we wanted to exasperate colonial people politically, we could not find a better way of doing it. There is not the slightest use in keeping them in the Empire or Commonwealth unless they wish to stay. It is an old maxim of Liberalism, and a good one, that you cannot rule people except by their consent. In India and the Colonies we had for decades the tacit consent of the people, though there was no ballot box because there was no democratic form of government. We had to quit India, Burma and Pakistan when we had lost that tacit consent. I totally disagree with the views put forward by the hon. Member for Hornsey. It is necessary to criticise them because, as everyone knows, he has considerable knowledge of colonial peoples.
So far as I am concerned—and I think that I could say so far as every Member on this side of the Committee and probably so far as a great many on the other side are concerned—I wish that these Colonies were prosperous, enlightened, free. I believe that to be the view of my party. On the other hand, if my words go overseas, and words spoken in this House do get to the Colonies, I would point out—and I do so as a friend of theirs

who wants them to be self-governing as soon as possible—that we live in an interdependent world, and a very dangerous world at that. Sometimes in these Colonies—I have worked in several—people take a very parish-pump point of view. They think only of their Colony and they apply to it quite glibly the theories of democratic Liberalism, in the case of countries which are often not nations but plural societies, which have little political cohesion and where there is little education and oftentimes appalling illiteracy and poverty, and where those theories do not fit in with actual conditions at the moment.
Then, again, a Colony may not be very wealthy from an economic point of view but it might be valuable because of its strategic importance. Colonial peoples have to consider this and their self-defence. Even the big nations of the world today are joining together for the purpose of regional collective security. We see that in the Western Union principle, and I believe that the Colonies must realise that this idea of "ourselves alone" is simply fantastic in the modern world. For strategic reasons they have to throw in their lot with other people; otherwise they perish. Again, from the economic point of view the whole world is inter-dependent as never before. For the most part the Colonies produce, and for a long time will have to rely upon, agricultural produce. They do not need to consume it all and are able to export the products of farm, mine and forest which are surplus to their own needs. They depend for their existence on overseas markets. It is useless for them to take a parish-pump point of view. They must regard themselves as citizens of the world.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee talk about the enormous development needs of the Colonies. They are enormous. One hon. Member opposite said that we must have revolutionary big ideas. I entirely agree with him. We have now set aside £120 million, a very generous gift from this country to the Colonies, but it is a mere bagatelle. We have to think in terms of thousands of millions. The capital required to implement material projects alone is enormous, and that is not enough unless we can educate the people and improve their health so that they can co-operate with us as only healthy, educated citizens can. So I would again tell my colonial friends who


naturally, like every human being, want self-government, want the power to rule themselves, and want posts—there is nothing wrong in that—that for many years, they will need the help of European technicians and administrators.
At the present time a fight against famine is going on in the tropics. Several hon. Members have referred to it. In parts of Africa the population doubles itself in 25 years. In other parts it does so in 35 years; and the production of wealth does not keep pace with that increase of population. Since the war the population of the world has increased by about 200 million and most of that increase has taken place in the tropics The population problem in the Colonies is fundamental. It is appalling to contemplate. Those of us who have lived and worked in India and the Colonies and have seen the enormous growth of population look to the future with trepidation. The only way to meet this problem, as several hon. Members have pointed out, is development on a huge scale of the latent wealth and possibilities of the Colonies. Can we do it as regards our vast areas of Colonies? We have poured out money for many years. Long before we passed the legislation for the £120 million gift, we gave help of various kinds to the Colonies. Since the war we have also given several million pounds as food subsidies; we have even given them money to help to run their administration. That cannot go on.
In my opinion, this country cannot afford to give these gifts on this lavish scale when we are at present burdened with appalling taxation and war debts, and various other difficulties. Even if we set up wealth-producing projects in the Colonies, as we have been doing with the local development funds, even if we established social services in the Colonies and completed big projects there, a period would follow when those social services would have to be maintained. They can only be maintained, unless the British taxpayer has to provide social services indefinitely for 60 million people outside these islands, by the Colonies themselves having taxable capacity. The taxable capacity can only be there when the Colonies have been developed on an enormous scale.
Ceylon has been referred to in the Debate. There, when independence was granted, there was almost universal literacy, there was great trained technical ability, trained administrative officers, Ceylonese and European, were on the spot. Above all, the politicians in Ceylon had had long experience and training because of our policy of gradually expanding self-government, which is the wise system of British Governments of every political complexion. Other Colonies say, "Ceylon is independent; it is only a small place, and if it can be independent why cannot we?" I should like to give some figures in that connection. The revenue of Ceylon, an area which would not be missed if taken out of Nigeria, is bigger than the revenue of Nigeria. The revenue of Nigeria at the present time, although it has expanded since the war, is about 18s. per head, whereas the revenue of this country is £60 per head. The people in the Colonies sometimes say they want the same system of education and social services as we have in England. Can that be with an income of 18s. a head?
I ask my colonial friends to consider these things and to realise that in the Colonies political, social and educational advance must all go together. In the long run it can only be achieved by hard work. I know what this doctrine means in the tropical Colonies where the sun advises a man to go slow and not to strive. On the other hand, the rewards for well-directed hard work are enormous. It is only hard work in the Colonies which can lift the people to a stage of cultural education and comfort which only wealth can supply.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend explain for my information why in the Rhodesian mines hard work on the part of the native produces an income of £5 per year, while hard work on the part of the white man produces an income of up to and over £500 a year?

Mr. Reid: All I can say is I do not own the Rhodesian mines. I am not responsible for the salaries paid in those mines, but what my hon. Friend says does not interfere in the least with what I am saying. We in this country say that there is no remedy for our ills except hard work, and it is the same in the Colonies unless the British taxpayer is to finance them, and I say that he will not do so in-


definitely. The people of this country will not allow it to happen, because we are hard pressed as it is.
South-East Asia has been referred to in this Debate. That is potentially one of the richest areas in the world, and several countries are involved. There are water and all sorts of natural resources yet it is well-known that for the next 10 years it is doubtful whether famine can be avoided and whether a toll of the population will not be taken. It is only after 10 years or so, with luck, that these countries may become free from the fear of famine. That is an appalling state of affairs. In that part of the world, as in others—for instance, the Caribbean area—there is an international organisation. I suggest that that international organisation must get busy and plan the development of South-East Asia and there must be international funds to do the job. Britain cannot find the capital and adopt the enormous risks which are involved in the development of these areas.
There are similar risks in the groundnut scheme, and when there are risks in such schemes international funds are required to do the job to which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) referred. I have already said that Britain cannot finance such schemes and the people of this country will not allow it to be done on the huge scale on which the hon. and gallant Member and I are agreed it should be done. There must be a revolution in ideas. These Colonies cannot unaided develop their countries, to keep themselves alive and raise their standards of living in their own interests and the interests of the world. If the Colonies are to be developed, it is for the good of the Colonies and for the good of the whole world. That being so, the whole world must take the risk and find the funds for developing the Colonies properly. I throw out that suggestion, for what it is worth.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept American capital if it were offered?

Mr. Reid: I was not thinking of that, but rather of State enterprises. There are various international bodies connected with the United Nations, the International Bank and so on. In dealing with the Colonies, owing to the difficulties that might arise, this kind of work should not

be undertaken only by one country, which would be accused of exploitation. It would be much better if it were done by an international agency which is above political suspicion.
As a final word, I want to say something about propaganda in the Colonies. We are now making a gigantic attempt to develop the Colonies. We are straining our resources to do it, but there are propagandists in the Colonies who are decrying our efforts. They are assuring their people, who are often ignorant and easily misled, that this is simply imperialistic exploitation, which is done not in the interests of the natives but in the interests of this country. There is a spate of propaganda going out in most of the Colonies. I hope my voice will carry to the friendly, decent people in the Colonics, when I urge them not to be misled by false prophets, but to take this propaganda with a grain of salt. I ask them, as far as the Colonies are concerned, to co-operate with Britain in trying to stave off famine and starvation, and to develop their own countries for their own good and for that of the rest of the world.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The Committee will be interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). He had the advantage of speaking from a personal experience of the Colonies and on both sides of the Committee Members will be found who can agree with much of what he said. He rather put his finger on the most important points as regards that part of the world about which I intend to speak, namely Africa, when he pointed out, firstly, that in some parts of Africa the native population has doubled in size in a very short time; and, secondly, that this country was no longer in the position economically to give gifts in quite the same generous way as she has been in a position hitherto to give gifts. The fact that the population is increasing so rapidly means that the old methods are no longer likely in the future to support the population, so that development by new methods to support these people, involving a lot of capital, of which we in this country are very short, must be given serious consideration.
I intend to speak about East and Central Africa. I had the good fortune to


go on an Empire Parliamentary Association mission to East Africa, and I went on later to Central Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa where I was able to see different stages of African development. From a personal point of view I got some benefit from the contrasts between the conducted tour of the delegation and the more unrehearsed performance which I saw in the later trip down south. I found very much to admire in the colonial administration, though I did find at least three points which caused me some concern.
In the first place, I found a considerable amount of misunderstanding about our long-term policy for the future. There seemed to be no clear idea of what that policy was. In one territory it was one thing and in the next territory it seemed to be totally different, and, quite frankly, seen at a distance, the co-ordination of Whitehall was lacking. Secondly, I wondered whether some of the development projects were not proposed for the wrong places; and, thirdly, I was very disappointed at what I considered to be the failure to make use of the influx of European settlers, whose skill is so badly needed in those territories.
I formed the most favourable impression of the efficiency of the Colonial Office servants on the spot. I thought they knew their job very well and were most hard working. However, I am bound to say I thought there was considerable evidence that they were apt to be somewhat estranged from the settlers; and when I went further south, to Southern Rhodesia, a country which has secured self-government, I did not notice the same thing at all. I could not but make unfavourable comparisons of that kind.
It seems to me that there has been some failure to face up to the political future of these various territories. I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State intervene when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) was speaking, to say he had given assurances about the position of the white settlers in Kenya, because I am quite certain that what the hon. and gallant Member said is correct, and that is that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the point amongst all races. That misunderstanding is not for the benefit of the future development of

those territories, if the various races are to work together harmoniously to carry out the development which is so necessary.
It is a pity, in a way, that there is not a clear distinction drawn between the contributions which are likely to be made by the various territories of East and Central Africa to this development. I referred just now to the question of how much capital Great Britain can now afford to spend. I think very few would disagree when I say that the amount of capital we have to spend on the Colonies is now somewhat limited. Wherever we spend that capital, Europeans will have to go to be the technical people responsible for carrying projects into effect. It is not very long ago since we had an Adjournment Debate on development in Africa. When the Under-Secretary of State was in East Africa he made some fine, airy statements about how European technicians would be welcome out there, and how it was desired that there should be a flow of them to East Africa. A Question was asked about it in the House, and the Secretary of State was very quick to pour cold water on the whole thing.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? On the contrary, my right hon. Friend confirmed everything I said. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that a number of technicians are already going out as a result of my statement in East Africa.

Mr. Digby: I think the Secretary of State denied there was any new policy. The Under-Secretary of State implied that there was a new policy, and that was denied. If there is not a new policy I cannot see what the Under-Secretary is taking credit for—except, perhaps, for the work of his predecessors. In the Adjournment Debate the Under-Secretary of State agreed with what has been the sense of the House tonight, that that development is necessary, and he said:
I am certain that we must have for East Africa a bold and imaginative plan."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 215.]
He went on to say that it should consist of four different features—heavy industries round Jinja; development of secondary industries, particularly in Kenya; an improvement in agriculture and animal


husbandry; and development of the tsetse fly areas. I should like to say a word or two about those four matters.
First, with regard to the development of heavy industries around Jinja. As hon. Members will know, there is not an awful lot there at the moment on which to found heavy industries. There is the White Nile River and the Owen Falls and the project of the barrage. That was suggested some 40 years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Rees-Williams: He did nothing about it.

Mr. Digby: As hon. Members know, Uganda up to now has been a country where there have been few Europeans at all. There will be no suitable Europeans on the spot. It is a country in which Europeans have not owned land—or even houses—privately. If we wish to set up heavy industries there we shall have to introduce a very large European element. It is true we shall have the power from the barrage scheme. It is true that out by Mbale there is a hill which is supposed to be a mass of iron ore, but there is iron ore in Tanganyika. I can see few advantages in thus bringing many Europeans into Uganda, which at the moment, with the possible exception of Nyasaland, is the least Europeanised of those countries.
The Under-Secretary of State spoke next about secondary industries in Kenya. Does he mean development in Nairobi district? Presumably not, as he was talking of the power scheme, and that power can be transmitted only a limited distance. I should have assumed that there would be some idea of development of secondary industries at Kisumu or in the Kavirondo district where the land is so thickly populated. But I understand that nothing whatever of the kind has been projected or even thought out yet. If he is really serious about these development plans, it is about time he was able to tell us what they are, and what concrete steps have been taken to consult the people on the spot with the object of obtaining their point of view.
With regard to the next matter, improvement in agriculture and animal husbandry, I think few would disagree with the Under-Secretary of State. We have a number of agricultural officers out

there. I found them, on the whole, of a pretty high standard. They were overworked and there were not nearly enough of them. They were doing all they could to check erosion, which is a very serious problem in Africa. However, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman proposes suddenly to solve this problem of soil erosion. Is it proposed to appoint far more agricultural officers? Is it proposed to do what, I understand, is under contemplation further south, to take very much stronger measures against cultivators who refuse to cultivate the land properly? If he intends to go along in the present way, I do not think the results will be very considerable, either in cultivation or in the improvement of animal husbandry.
I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have mentioned forestry, too. I had an opportunity of looking over a number of forest areas out there. There, again, one came up against this tremendous problem of the shortage of staff. I thought that in the appointment of staff the standard aimed at was far too high. They were, I believe, refusing to accept Europeans for forestry work who had not university degrees. That is aiming very high. I should have thought far better results would be achieved if they were to appoint more people, and were not quite so fussy about university degrees. The same thing applies to agriculture. There are many farmers' sons in this country who know plenty about farming but who have not been to universities. Why the Colonial Office refuses to use them when so many are willing to go out there, I fail to understand.
Lastly, I come to the question of the fly areas. The Under-Secretary spoke as though he had the cure up his sleeve. I hope to goodness that he has, because I talked to a lot of people about this and have come to the conclusion that he is a very long way from reaching any satisfactory solution.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the hon. Member seems to be making a series of attacks on me, or on my ideas, will he kindly inform the Committee and myself what authority he has for saying that I said that I have the answer to the tsetse fly up my sleeve?

Mr. Digby: I did not say the Under-Secretary "had" the answer, but that I hoped he had the answer. What I do


say is that he spoke in a very optimistic way in his statements about the whole problem. If he was referring to bush clearance, that is a very large project indeed, when enormous areas are involved, but if he has some new kind of spray, we shall be delighted to hear about it. This is a large problem which cannot be laughed off. I am not attacking the Under-Secretary, but offering a few suggestions about these ideas of his which are on the right lines, and which I should like to see put in practice, or at any rate put into plans at a fairly early date.
It seems to me that in the whole of these territories there is still lacking a sufficient sense of the economic urgency of the position in the Mother Country. Things are very difficult here for us, as we all know, but it is not sufficiently known or realised by the officials on the spot. For example, it was two and a half weeks before we found an official in East Africa who used a British car, and this at a time when we are doing our best to sell British cars to the African Continent.
We found that an important diamond mine had been deprived of four vital miles of railway track in order, it was said, to supply them for the groundnut scheme. Again, a goldmine in Tanganyika, which was making a valuable contribution towards earning vital dollars, did not seem to be getting that co-operation from the Tanganyika Government, which I should have thought was in our interests, and was being put into a very difficult financial position. It was found, when inquiring from officials and others about the capital needs of these territories, that the replies were extraordinarily vague and varied from the "Colonial Development Fund" to the somewhat different answer of "unlimited."
I believe there are several ways in which, if the Secretary of State will really approach the problem from the economic point of view, great assistance can be given in meeting the problems of the sterling area and at the same time in helping these territories. For instance, there is the question of growing more cotton in the Lake Provinces of Tanganyika. The present output of 35,000 bales a year could, in the opinion of many experts, be increased very rapidly, thereby replacing American cotton for which

we are paying dollars. Similarly, could not more of the Uganda cotton which is going to India be used in Lancashire in order to save dollars? These are questions which are extremely vital to this country, and I believe it is part of the work of the Colonial Office to consider them as a matter of urgency.
Africa, it is true, has been the last Continent to be developed by man. It is also true that she has very many disadvantages. She has the disadvantages of poor soil and lack of water, and she is infested with disease. I think there is a tendency to under-estimate these difficulties, but nevertheless the possibilities are there, and I hope that the Government will address their mind to these difficulties, not only in words but in deeds, and will not think that the groundnut scheme in Tanganyika is enough for this enormous undeveloped territory. There is plenty more work to be done. It is about 2,000 years since a Roman poet—I will not attempt to quote him in Latin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because my pronunciation might shock Old Etonians opposite. He wrote: "There is always something new from Africa." I do not see why there should not be many new things from Africa, and I hope that the Government, who have indulged in a good deal of verbiage on this subject, will now get down to it and let us have some more detailed plans.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I also wish to say a few words about the East African Territories. Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby), I also had the opportunity of visiting them a few months ago. I realise that that does not constitute me an expert and I cannot be dogmatic or speak with any authority, but at least I am a little less ignorant than I was before. I think I know something of the problems, and at any rate visits of this kind do arouse intense personal interest, which I think is all to the good. I only hope that there can be a much greater exchange of visitors between the Motherland and territories beyond the sea. It is sometimes said that we are living in the age of the "iron curtain," but I hope there will be no iron curtains between the Motherland and her Colonies.
It is very clear to me that the East African territories have reached a very important phase in their history. I believe that there will be large developments, for three reasons. First, there is the strategic importance of the territories, although this may be a subject which is mostly outside the scope of this Debate. Nevertheless, with the changed conditions in the Mediterranean it is quite clear that East Africa occupies a key position in any security arrangements. Whatever happens in the future, we cannot afford to run the appalling risks of 1939. Not even until this day is it possible to understand why the Italian army stopped on the frontier of Kenya when there was literally nothing to stop them going right through to South Africa except a few local troops and, I think, four "Hurricanes." I am not certain about these, and believe they came from South Africa, anyway. These risks cannot be taken in the future and some rapid development, for this reason alone is inevitable.
Secondly, there is the very rapid increase in the African population. Dr. Patterson, whose name has been mentioned in the Debate, has been collecting material for a good many years. He has had unique opportunities for gathering it, as he has had a most distinguished career in the African Medical Service. He estimates that in the next ten years the African population of the three main territories will double. One does not know what the African population is in these areas—a census is being taken at the present time—but it cannot be less than 10 million; therefore, the territories will have to support within the next 10 to 15 years, a population of at least 20 million, and already the food position is quite acute. Obviously, therefore, a great expansion of agricultural production is essential.
Most Members who have seen the problem at first hand will agree that it is unlikely that we can look for any substantial increase in agricultural production from the African farms. They are usually much too small and without adequate implements, and although there has been an improvement in some districts, they have not even compensated for the great amount of soil erosion which is taking place in many areas. Flying over parts of Kenya and Tanganyika, I saw large

areas of horrible red scars where the soil had been removed from the surface, leaving only hard rock underneath. These areas have now been lost to cultivation for all time. Little assistance, therefore, can be expected from the African farmer individually, although I hope we shall continue to expand the advice system which is working well in some areas.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said, I do not think we shall get any substantial increase either from the general European farmer. The scale of operations needed to effect a substantial improvement is usually so large as to be beyond the capital resources, at any rate, of the European. There are, however, some areas where European farming could be expanded, and I think the Colonial Secretary might investigate the possibilities of irrigation schemes in the lower courses of the Tana River. I believe, therefore, generally speaking, that large improvements in food conditions can only be secured by some form of community undertaking, financed by the Government, even though other agents are used to carry it out.
Thirdly developments are essential because the African and the European, and many others throughout the world, are hoping that we may be able to get some relief for our fats deficiency and for other shortages of raw materials. There are three immediate problems to be tackled if there is to be successful development. First, there is the health of the African. I did not know and I doubt whether it is realised here, that in East Africa the native is a sick person. We are sometimes told by the older but by no means representative settler that the African is lazy. Apart from the problem of incentives and the lack of them, and the need to induce the habit of hard work—a habit which I do not take kindly to myself—the average African is often a diseased person. I asked medical officer after medical officer what was the incidence of hookworm or other intestinal diseases, and I never got a figure lower than 90 per cent. Sometimes it was as high as 95 per cent.
Similarly, with venereal disease. It was rare to find a district in which less than 50 per cent. of the population were not afflicted by this disease, either congenitally or by contagion. There were


whole areas in which malaria attacks were the constant condition of a very large number of inhabitants. Although it is possible to work under these conditions for a long time, they have an enormous effect on the vigour and energy of the individual. This is a problem to which we and the African authorities must pay great attention.
I want to emphasise, in passing, that I have the highest praise for our existing health services, inadequate as they are. The European doctor, working with his bush dispensaries, is doing an excellent job, but there are not enough of them, or of medical assistants, and I hope we shall find ways and means of extending medical training at Makerere College and elsewhere, so that more assistants can be forthcoming, and so that we shall be able to extend further into the bush. Distances in this matter, as in others, are enormous, and there is no easy or quick solution.
The second problem, education, is no less fundamental. The work which has been done by many of the mission schools has been first-class, but they are the first to admit that their resources are strained to the limit, that they can take on no more, and that the community must step in with assistance. The same kind of difficulties confront the educational services as the medical services. Nearly all primary education has to be organised on boarding school lines. There is, for instance, no going home to lunch in the bush for many. I was struck by the very small proportion of girls who get any schooling at all. Many schools have no girl pupils, or perhaps one out of 400.
I personally welcomed very much the opening of the Alliance High School in March, 1948, which is the first State secondary school in Kenya for Africans. It will provide a four-year course of secondary education for girls, and although there are only nine pupils there now, a beginning has been made which might be the start of a profound social revolution. We all know of the unfortunate status of the African woman, and if something can be done to give her further opportunities we shall be doing something of the utmost value. In passing I am glad to say that I saw, in Uganda, women on two local native councils, who are playing their part very well.
Without criticising any of the arrangements—because I can visualise the immense difficulties in Kenya—it is true we are only touching the fringe of the problem. There are about two million children in Kenya, and only 200,000 in primary schools and 4,000 in secondary schools. If we are to see any great development of the territories we must work much faster than that. This is very true of technical education. I think it is regrettable that Italian technicians are now being brought into these territories. What I have seen convinces me that the African, if selected properly, can perform most of the skilled jobs. Both Uganda and Tanganyika have training schemes which have been open to those leaving the African Forces. They were trained in bricklaying, carpentry, tailoring and metal work. Unfortunately, the records of those who left the centres after training were disappointing. Few stuck to the job for which they had been trained. With all respect to hon. and gallant Members in the Committee, it may be that soldiers are the wrong people to train for this sort of work and that we must be more careful in selection in future.
In the railway workshops at Nairobi we saw samples of machine work, carpentry, upholstery and iron foundry work—all being performed excellently by Africans. There were also men working in engineering shops at the sisal estates. There must be the right selection of men, careful supervision and a great deal of patience. I hope much more emphasis will be given to the provision of opportunities for technical education for the African. I was struck by the fact that although the Indian community are building a number of schools in different parts of the territories, I did not see any attempt to provide any sort of technical education for them, which is regrettable.
The third great problem in the tsetse fly. In Uganda and Tanganyika two-thirds of the territory is controlled not by the Colonial Office, but by the tsetse fly. About one-third of Kenya is always subject to its domain. Recently the fly was gaining; at one time many hundreds of square miles of land were becoming unfit for cultivation and cattle rearing. It seems to me that we have been very mean in this problem. In the last 10 years the sums of money spent on a work which could clear away a menace and provide


millions of acres for cultivation, has been all too small. I am very glad to know that the veterinary and the tsetse services are to be united and that there will be a common attack and exchange of information in all three territories. I believe only £40,000 is to be provided even now to deal with this menace. It seems to me to be all too small and I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary whether there are any further plans in store.
There are three ways of dealing with the menace. I visited one of the forward stations in the front line of attack between Gulu and Niva in Uganda where Scott, who is a very considerable naturalist in his own right, has established his headquarters. There, by burning the bush, keeping the game within a prescribed limit and by other methods he is pushing back the tsetse menace. I asked him if he were keeping abreast of the tsetse pressure, and he said, "Oh, yes, we are slowly pushing it back." He pointed out, however, that he had been there only six months, and that is appalling. That is the type of operation which should have been carried on in our territories years ago.
Secondly, I am glad to know that the new drug 7555 is really effective as an inoculation. In the past many owners of cattle on the fringe of the tsetse area preferred to run the risk from the tsetse fly than the certainty of having their cattle killed by inoculation. I understand that this new drug is giving very satisfactory results, and if so it may be a very formidable weapon in our battle. The most satisfactory way of dealing with the menace is, of course, by settlement, and that is why I believe schemes like the groundnut scheme will be the most successful, because they mean vast settlements in the heart of tsetse areas, which provides the most effective way of dealing with it as it cleans the jungle and makes it impossible for the fly to breed.
I close with the hope that the Colonial Governments themselves will consider methods of raising additional revenue. Some Africans and some Europeans seem to regard this country as having an unlimited supply of cash for these developments. On both sides of the Committee we will do what we can to spend even larger sums and we will agree to measures even depriving our-

selves, for the development of these areas which is so essential. It is true, however, as the Attorney-General in the Kenya Legislative Council said when I was there and there was a debate on the crime wave, that in the past Kenya itself tried to do things on the cheap. It was pointed out that 25 years ago the foundation stone of the new police station was laid. The foundation stone is still there, but the rest of the area is occupied by a garage. That kind of attitude is not big enough. We have to be big, but so also have our colonial territories. I hope that the new constitutional arrangements for East Africa in the East African Legislative Assembly will be the prelude to an era of prosperity for the Africans, for the Europeans and indeed for the whole world.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The more I listen to these Colonial Debates the more I am convinced that what is needed almost is a special Session to discuss these colonial questions. If His Majesty's Government are looking for a subject for the special Session in the Autumn, I am sure that the large question of colonial affairs would fill the bill. What I am going to say at this late hour I shall telescope into a few sentences and a series of questions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred briefly to the disturbances on the Gold Coast, nd he said that the report of the Commission of inquiry under Mr. Watson, K.C., which is now in his hands, would be published at the end of the month, and at the same time there would be a Government announcement of policy upon the findings. That is reasonable and we can wait until then. It is not my intention or desire to say anything which will interfere with those arrangements, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position meanwhile of the six men who have been detained in connection with the Gold Coast disturbances.
As he has said, we have to wait until the end of the month before we have the Commission's Report and the statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this whole question. But what about the arrested men? I should like to know if they are under house arrest at the present time or


are they under close arrest; have they been released, or where have they been removed to since first arrested? My information was that they were under socalled house arrest, which confined them completely to a building beyond which they were unable to go at all. In effect, it was a form of imprisonment. If not, can the right hon. Gentleman say where they are at the present time, and also are they able to communicate with their relatives and friends? What is the position? It seems very unsatisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) on 21st March asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether an application has been made to the courts in the Gold Coast, on behalf of the six men recently arrested under the Government's Emergency Powers, for a writ of habeas corpus.
The right hon. Gentleman replied,
According to information received from the Governor, no application had been made to the court for a writ of habeas corpus …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1948; Vol. 448; c. 3015.]
I understand that no application was made to the court, but can the Under-Secretary say whether an application was made to the registrar on the spot, and if the registrar, when the application was made, replied that under the emergency powers this was not possible, which, in fact, was what the right hon. Gentleman said on 21st March at the end of the questions addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset? Is this not misleading the House? I have in my hand a copy of these emergency powers and the Orders in Council issued by Sir Gerald Creasy and I find that Section I (5) says:
No action, prosecution or other legal proceeding calling in question the legality of anything done under or by virtue, or in pursuance, of this regulation or any Order of direction made or issued thereunder shall be brought, instituted or maintained, or shall be entertained by any court at any time.
That is a regulation far more drastic than anything we had under Regulation 18(B) in this country during the war.
This is, I think, the most formidable regulation that I have ever read. Here during the war, under Regulation 18(B), we had the Sir Norman Birkett Committee to which persons could appeal and submit their cases. Under this document

there is no appeal or redress for these people under these emergency powers, unless to this House. There is no legal right of appeal to the courts there or here or to any judiciary committee of any sort or kind. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman with his great record, particularly as regards civil liberties on Colonial territories, can mean that these emergency regulations shall be operated against these six men without limitation. There is no charge against them, but they are incarcerated under conditions concerning which we have no real information.
I do not want to enter into a discussion on the general policy of the Government on these Gold Coast disturbances and I am prepared to await the statement together with the reports which are to be issued at the end of the month. At the same time, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to extend some kind of monopoly measure to control monopolies on the Gold Coast similar to the Bill introduced into this House at the present time; otherwise the Monopoly Bill will be absolutely supreme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to give us some sort of assurance on that point.
In a very interesting speech, with which I did not agree in many respects, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) referred to the future policy, plan or clear pattern of Empire development. I ask what has been done in regard to the area development scheme, which was first discussed and suggested by Field-Marshal Smuts. It was to be a new policy in which the Dominions were to co-operate with regard to the development economically and in relation to strategical questions, of certain Colonies on a geographical basis. A great deal was said about this matter at the time. I am convinced that we shall never be able to deal with the massive Colonial development problems which confront us—Malaya has shown us the truth of this statement—unless we decentralise and call in the Dominions to co-operate in developing the grouping or area scheme. I hope that the matter has not been lost sight of and that in a future Debate, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is going on and whether representations have been made to him that


the Dominions are prepared to come into a geographical and strategic area scheme of this sort.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Dumpleton: At the outset of my speech I would echo what has been said on both sides of the Committee about the inadequacy of the time that has been given to this discussion of colonial affairs. We should all like to deal with many of the subjects which have come tinder review. Many of them have been dealt with, and we are all tempted to follow up the points which have been raised. I am conscious, as most of us are, that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate and so I can only concentrate in the few minutes at my disposal on one aspect of one particular territory in the vast range of territories and places which must be covered in a Debate upon colonial affairs.
I want to deal with a subject which was touched upon by the Secretary of State in his opening speech and which has been dealt with in the Annual Report upon the Colonial Empire. Hon. Members will have read that report. The subject is the development of local government, particularly in Africa. This is a very important subject to which the Committee is right to give some attention. The development of local government organs must progress alongside economic development, about which we have been talking. The success or failure of many development schemes under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, or schemes which are envisaged in the formation of the Colonial Development Corporations, will depend to a very great extent upon the active co-operation of the African people themselves, in their own villages and towns. There can be little doubt that the most effective means of encouraging and harnessing such co-operation is through the leadership of the African local authorities.
The growth of responsible democratic local government has, therefore, become a matter of considerable importance and urgency in the African territory. I am glad that my right hon. Friend gave it that place in his opening speech and in the policy which he has been developing over the last year or two. In African territories and particularly, in my experience, in West Africa, there is an increasing

number of educated Africans who, by their membership of a variety of boards, committees and councils, are taking a share in creating and shaping policy for the government of their own country. There is a danger that this process will tend to produce from the educated minority a separate class of politicians preoccupied with affairs at the centre in each territory, separate from and out of real touch with the mass of their own people.
As I understand it, the development of which the Secretary of State spoke is proceeding, as it must, along two parallel lines. There is the development of local government and the formation of municipal councils in the urban areas and the bigger towns. In passing, I would say that I am glad that an end has at last been reached of the deadlock which existed for so long in regard to the municipal ordinance in Freetown. When I was in Freetown last year, I discussed this matter with some of the Africans who were interested in that municipal ordinance. I found that some of them have a conception of autonomy and freedom from control from the central Government, which went far beyond anything that a local authority in this country would claim. There did seem to be a lack of understanding of what municipal government should be.
I am glad to know that the municipal council is being set up in Port Harcourt. It is necessary to continue this development in the rural areas, of which these territories are predominantly formed. They are predominantly agricultural rural areas. It is of tremendous importance to develop rural councils on the foundation of the traditional native organisation. The democratic native system need not necessarily conflict with the traditional tribal institutions which exist in nearly all areas, in varying degrees of strength and influence.
The traditional elements have an important part to play and can be integrated with the new system provided proper representation of all elements is secured. Possibly the process of political development will best be aided by the increasing acquisition of executive power by representative elements of the various local councils, without any change necessarily taking place in the formal constitutional position of the chiefs. In many areas it is the experience that the establishment


of functional committees to deal with particular subjects such as health, education and finance on the English local government pattern is proving a valuable means in that direction. I hope it will be extended. It is interesting and significant to note that in the Eastern Provinces of Uganda where notable progress in the development of this system of village, district and county councils has taken place, it was at first anticipated by the British officials on the spot that there would be a good deal of opposition on the part of the chiefs to the introduction of this kind of council, but instead of opposing them and fearing that the councils might eventually supersede them, the chiefs had in almost every instance welcomed them and used them.
This policy of stimulating and guiding the growth of democratic local self-government in the British African territories—I particularly wish to underline this point—depends for its success on a number of essential requirements, the first of which is a clear recognition by all concerned that the method of democracy can most effectively be learnt by its practice. That means that even at the risk of some initial inefficiency and frequent disappointments, an increasing measure of responsibility must be entrusted to these organs of local government so that by practical experience their members may acquire those qualities which are necessary for effective and reliable administration.
Linked with that need is the need for greater attention to be given to the recruitment and training of local government staffs. The importance of attracting the best Africans to the service of their own local governing bodies requires that the rates of pay and conditions of service must be at least as good as those under the central government service of each territory. Many native administrations have hitherto been unable to offer such terms owing to lack of funds. Hence the need for placing local government bodies on a sound financial basis. At present men trained at Achimota, Makerere and other higher educational centres are proving of great worth, but their numbers are far too small.
The higher educational colleges now being developed will need to give the maximum possible attention to the needs of local government, but in the interim

until they are able to meet the need, special measures ought to be taken even to the extent of bringing over to this country selected individuals for periods of training with English local authorities and sending out there experienced local government personnel from this country to conduct training courses for Africans. Probably the key to the successful furtherance of the policy of developing local self-government, at any rate in the initial stages, lies in the enthusiasm and loyal response and wholehearted application of that policy by the British administrative and specialist officers in the field. They need to be helped a great deal. The Cambridge Summer School last August demonstrated the value of such conferences and courses. They need to be extended, and greater facilities are required for the circulation and exchange of information. The field is so vast and varied that every area has some experience from which others may profit.
The direction in which the field staffs most urgently need relief is in the reduction of the great volume of detailed routine duties and in the provision of better office equipment and facilities. I found this to a great extent when I was in Nigeria and the Gold Coast. To this end there should be increasing employment of sufficiently skilled and trained Africans to serve in such subsidiary positions as office managers or accountants or licensing officers. This is being tried out in Uganda, where district accountants are being appointed, and I think that is a step in the right direction.
Finally, the pace of the development of efficient Government organs in Africa, and their ability to assume increasing executive and financial responsibility, depends more than anything else, as the Governor of Uganda has very rightly said, not only upon their representative and democratic character but, in the last resort, upon the quality of the human material available. Where the human limiting factor is fundamental lack of character, it is far more serious and difficult to remedy than lack of education. The progress of Africans, as of ourselves and all other people, in local government or any other social sphere must necessarily be slow wherever there is lack of a sense of public responsibility, of social service and of standards of common honesty.
Something was said this afternoon about the need for developing voluntary organisations with which I fully agree. We, with our thousand years of development, have much we can give, and possibly there is much we can learn from these new, growing communities. We should avoid the mistake of attempting too rigidly to impose our own patterns of local government. We can show them the form of the democratic way of life, but it must be the African way of life, and Africans alone can make it democratic and alive.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: In the very few minutes at my disposal I should like to associate myself with other hon. Members who regret that there has been so little time given for the discussion of this all-important subject. It has really been quite impossible for us to cover a large portion of the Empire, and when people in many colonial territories read their papers tomorrow morning they will think it peculiar that in a Debate in the House of Commons so much should be left out.

Dr. Morgan: This is a Supply Debate.

Mr. Hare: I should like to concentrate on one or two matters affecting the development of Africa because this Debate has concentrated more on the development of the African Continent than perhaps on any other aspect of the Empire. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House are unanimous in their opinion that on the proper, efficient and rapid development of the resources of both minerals and agriculture in the African Continent depends the future welfare of the rapidly growing African population, as well as the future welfare of other large portions of the world, which cannot hope to maintain a reasonable standard of living unless the great benefits of increased production from Africa are available to them.
Therefore we must consider the main elements which are preventing and delaying the development we all want to see. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested that we should be spending more money on our development schemes than we are now. I think that is nonsense. It is not a question of the amount of money we are prepared to spend, but of how much in the form of capital goods we are prepared to allot to

development in these African territories. Quite clearly, faulty communications are the first stumbling block in the way of obtaining the results which we require. We must build up a railroad system, we must build up a port system and also road systems before we can begin to get industrial or agricultural production really going strongly.
Lack of capital goods also is preventing the agricultural land already being farmed from producing the extra food we need. Members of the Committee who visit these African territories will get the universal complaint from all the farming community that, if they had another tractor, could get an extra plough, more wire, and some cement, they could increase their production. It may not be altogether our fault that we are not able to produce them, but these things must be included amongst our objectives. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are making the best use of the capital goods available for export to these countries. I think it was the President of the Board of Trade who made a very true remark, with which I entirely agree, in the Debate on the Economic Survey; he said that we had so much to do in 1948 and so little with which to do it.
There are various indications that we are not making the best use of the capital goods available for export to the African Continent. Three examples come to my mind. I cannot believe that with good management and a proper allocation of priorities we would be faced with the fact that last year 100,000 tons of groundnuts were piled up in the interior of Nigeria. It is not right that with this harvest—a very heavy harvest, which I am told this year will fortunately amount to some 300,000 tons—should be allowed to pile up in Nigeria. I know that locomotives and railway trucks are on the way to that Colony. I am glad they are going. But, if my information is correct—and I believe it is—I feel that if there had been ten extra locomotives and 240 extra trucks last year the whole of that backlog of 100,000 tons could have been brought down to the ports. If that is true, it is something the Government should have dealt with.
My second point concerns the sisal industry. When I was in Tanganyika this year, I was assured by members of that industry that if they had been granted a


slightly larger allocation of labour and given twenty extra heavy tractors they would probably have produced an extra £2½ million worth of dollars by cutting extra sisal leaf which the Americans wanted. A small extra allocation would have made a great difference in reducing the dollar drain which is crippling this country.
My third example is perhaps not such a strong one. It is well known that in Northern Rhodesia the copper mines are under-producing. That is because the Northern and Southern Rhodesian railway systems are short of rolling stock and coal. In addition, there is congestion in the port of Beira. I know that this latter point is to be dealt with, but it is a serious matter when we realise that in electrolite copper last year we spent some £24 million in importing copper, of which £14 million was in the form of dollar purchases from hard currency areas. That our own sterling area should be under-producing copper, and at the same time we are having to pour forth our precious dollars in buying this commodity, indicates that this is a matter which should be urgently dealt with and put right.
The second question I would ask is how much extra assistance in the development of these Colonies, Marshall Aid will give us. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), in the final words of his speech on Tuesday of this week, made the point on which I want to question the Government: How are we going to use the four years which American generosity has given us? That is the vital question. We have four years in which to concentrate on the colonial development of Africa. Decisions have to be made now—there can be no delay. It has to be decided where the new railway systems are to be built.
There has been enough planning; action is now required. Are we to develop the railways from the Rhodesias to the West Coast of Africa or link up Central Africa with the Tanganyika and Kenya railway systems? These decisions should be made rapidly because they will take a great deal of time to implement. It is my dream that within a decade, if we really get down to the job, we can be exporting sufficient coal, copper and chrome through

a West Coast port in Africa to the Argentine and other South American countries to pay our total meat bill by such an operation. These dreams must be made to come true and I feel the right hon. Gentleman has a very heavy responsibility, because, unless they come true, our very standard of living and existence is drastically threatened.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. Must this Debate terminate at 10 o'clock? If so, how can the Committee express its sense of frustration and disappointment at the completely inadequate amount of time devoted to colonial affairs?

The Chairman (Major Milner): The Debate, in accordance with the Standing Order, must finish at 10 o'clock. In regard to the time available, that is not a matter for the Chair, although I may remark that there have been a number of lengthy speeches whereas in Committee where many wish to speak, something of a self-denying ordinance on the part of hon. Members who do speak is required. That is the only suggestion and consolation which I can give the hon. Member.

Dr. Morgan: I wonder, Major Milner, whether you could make representations to the Government that they should give a further Supply Day in view of the fact that the Opposition are giving us this opportunity of having a colonial affairs Debate on their own day? Surely the Government should also give an opportunity for a Debate on Colonial affairs?

The Chairman: I am afraid such a course would not be in accord with the normal functions of the Chair.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: To one who, like myself, has listened in the past to a number of Debates on Colonial Estimates, the remarkable thing about the Debate today has been the number of hon. Members participating who have recently been in the areas about which they have been talking. Indeed, at one time the Committee was rather reminiscent of an East African "old home week." Among such bronzed pioneers I feel conscious of my own defects because it is now, I regret to say, three years since I have been able to visit any of the colonial territories. I frankly recognise what a handicap that is. We live in a time of rapid change


both in facts and, even more important, in opinions and however great may be one's interest, however much one may read, it does require personal contact really to keep in touch. I am sure the Secretary of State for the Colonies welcomes as much as I do the increased opportunities which have recently been afforded to hon. Members for visits abroad.
I must in fairness make one point on this Annual Report upon which the right hon. Gentleman hung his remarks. I criticised it last year, but this year I find it immensely improved both in form and in presentation. I have only one suggestion to make. It may be quite impossible, but from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure it would be an immense gain if we could have this report rather earlier. The difficulty is that it would be obviously absurd for the Opposition to ask for a Supply Day for the discussion of colonial questions until this report was issued and until hon. Members had time to study it. The result is that we do not even get our first day until well on to the middle of July, and that may well deprive us of opportunities which might otherwise occur of having a second day for discussion.

Dr. Haden Guest: The Report of the Committee on Estimates is being published tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Stanley: I do not see how that affects the question.

Dr. Morgan: He has had his chance; you go on.

Mr. Stanley: I am sure we all understand the difficulties, but if the right hon. Gentleman could do something to help, it would meet a real need.
A great deal of this Debate has turned upon the question of Malaya, and not unnaturally because it is the part of the Colonial Empire which must be giving to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all of us who take an interest in it, the greatest anxiety at the moment. There have been many questions and many criticisms. I do not intend to go over ground which has already been adequately covered by people who have greater personal knowledge of that country. It is always easy for us sitting here in London to criticise the action of Governments in far parts of the Colonies, faced on the

spot with these dangers, but it is only fair to say that in this case, from all I learn—and I think probably from anything that hon. Members who have correspondents in Malaya have learned also—there is widespread criticism in Malaya itself of the delay on the part of the Government in taking the action which they are now taking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply to the specific questions which were put to him and give us an assurance that the stern measures which we see are now to be taken will be carried through to the end.
I wish to speak about this matter on a much more general line. Malaya, and indeed also the riots in the Gold Coast, show a new danger which British administration is facing in the Colonial Empire today. The risk to security, to public order, to governmental authority, does not now depend, as it did in the past, on the feeling of political grievance or the resentment of economic conditions. It may often be, of course, that those political grievances or economic conditions are made use of, but this new movement can and does subsist independently of their existence. The old idea that a movement of this kind cannot arise without the sympathy of the population is now quite out of date. These movements can work on the local population as much by fear as by sympathy. Let us face the fact that this kind of movement cannot be met by concessions because it does not rely on grievances. It is a challenge to authority, a challenge to our whole idea of colonial progress, a challenge that has to be met and fought by the Government on the spot with the support of the Government here, and the support, which I am sure they will have, of the whole House.
What worries me both about Malaya and the Gold Coast is the fact that the Government appear to have been taken by surprise. That seems to point to the need for better information, for the need to act more promptly on that information and for the necessity of acting not only promptly but decisively. Certainly we on this side of the Committee can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance of support when he has to act in that way.
I wish to say a few words about the West Indies. The right hon. Gentleman referred to them and said, quite rightly, that


West Indian problems were apt today to be forgotten in the greater interest which has been aroused in immediate African possibilities. I think that that is quite true and that there is a danger, which has been rather evidenced in this Debate, that we are beginning to think of the Colonial Empire as being African. The right hon. Gentleman did us a service by making some reference to the West Indian problem, but I wish he had been able to be a little more specific. I regard the situation in the West Indies as fraught with greater danger than the situation today in Africa.
It may well be that we cannot expect, as partners, to get as much out of the West Indies as we might get out of Africa, but, as trustees, we may find a much bigger collapse of our obligations in the West Indies than we are likely to find in Africa. In my view the position there is grave. Unemployment is growing, and I should like to have heard, not an exchange of arguments between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) as to when some report was going to be published, but a statement that some plan was to be put into execution.
I am making no party political capital out of the West Indian problem. It is a problem which has faced all Governments in turn. A great deal has been done and a great deal of money has been spent. The problem is, of course, the increase in population in the West Indies which always outstrips the increased aid given. If the conditions of 1948 were dealing with the population of 1938, the position in the West Indies today would not look too bad. The trouble is that, by the time we reach the conditions of 1948, the population has gone right ahead of the assistance we are supplying. I feel that in our new preoccupation with Africa we must not let the grave problem of the West Indies be obscured. I hope that if there is another opportunity for a colonial discussion, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some more detailed account of what he has in view. I should like to say one word on the political angle. The right hon. Gentleman talked about constitutional development at a greater tempo and the danger of delay. I agree that that is a side

that we must not forget. But also do not let us forget the other side—the danger of going too fast. At times when I was responsible, I stressed, because I thought it was the thing most to stress at the time, the danger of going too slowly. I believe we are reaching the position today when the greater danger is the danger of going too fast, when, in fact, we have extended constitutional development considerably beyond the economic and social development on which any sound constitutional advance has to be based.
I hope we are not going to think that, just in order to be progressive, we must continually be making constitutional advances. The right hon. Gentleman said that the pressure of constitutional advance is a painful thing. I do not know for whom he meant it was painful, but overhasty constitutional advance can be most painful for the people whom we are most obliged to protect. Too hurried transfer of responsibility to the intelligentsia of the Colonies may well mean a lessening of the protection now provided to the least educated and those lower in the economic scale.
I feel that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right on this matter to put emphasis on local government. I should have liked to follow the interesting speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton). I think we are facing here a very great problem, not the breakdown, I hope—because it is too valuable to be allowed to break down—but the great strain which in Africa is being put on the system of indirect rule. Indirect rule is a thing of which we had every reason in the past to be proud. It enabled us, when we first went into Africa, immediately to give some degree of responsibility to people to whom otherwise, it would have been very difficult to give any share of control.
It is quite clear that with the march of events, with the experience brought back from the war, with the whole process of organisation, that the strain on the traditions and conventions by which indirect rule exercised authority becomes greater and greater. The greatest problem we have to face in Africa in the next few years is not this so-called extension of power at the centre or this so-called new responsibility given to executive councils or to quasi-ministerial posts. The greatest problem is how we are to reconcile the traditional respect for the old form of


tribal government with a new generation which has not inherited all these traditions, which sees newer problems, and which has no effective machinery to substitute for that which in the past served us so well.
I should like to say a few words on the economic side of this question. I, in common with everybody who has spoken, only wish that I had longer in which to develop those matters in which I am interested. I thought that on this subject the right hon. Gentleman was extremely fair. He made it plain that he did not claim that economic development of the Colonial Empire had started with this Government. It did not start with them. It did not start with the Colonial Welfare and Development Acts of the war. There have been three phases. There was a phase of large-scale economic development before the war under private enterprise; a phase, started during the war, of the Colonial Welfare and Development Acts, and now the new phase initiated by the Government of further economic development by public corporations.
All those forms of development are not mutually exclusive but mutually complementary. All three have their place in the conditions which now exist. Though we hotly deny claims, made not by the right hon. Gentleman but on political platforms, that now and now only has any economic development taken place in the Colonies, we do not try to deny the Government credit for the fact that, faced with wholly new conditions and therefore with a wholly new opportunity, they have shown themselves willing to take the opportunity presented to them. But I would point out that at the moment we are talking only in terms of plans. Do not let us talk as if in fact, by some miraculous event of the last year or two, there have been some great-scale economic changes in the colonial territories. There have not. The mere fact that the Government make a plan, and today the mere fact that the Government allocate money, does not mean that development has taken place.
The most significant point the right hon. Gentleman made is the fact that the very large sums of money, which have been available for the last few years under the Colonial Welfare and Development Acts and which form part of the 10-year

development plan independent of these corporations, have not been spent. Why? Not because they were not available, not because people did not want to spend them, but because there were not available the capital goods, the raw materials, the labour and the skill required. Therefore, just by adding more money to the money we are already enabled to spend, does not really by itself get us anywhere.
I was impressed by the way the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Colonial Development Corporation was approaching its problems. Frankly, I thought it seemed a very great improvement on the way that the Overseas Food Corporation—or rather the Ministry of Food—have approached their side of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman warned us against having too great immediate expectations from these developments. He was quite right. Large-scale developments of this kind cannot produce immediate results. The main criticism we have about the groundnut scheme is not against the idea or against the way the people on the spot have been carrying it out. It is that the Minister of Food, in order to save face, because he raised such wholly unjustifiable immediate expectations, has been putting pressure on the people on the spot to produce results far before any ordinary sensible man could expect results to be produced. Frankly, the result is that we have had, in the groundnuts scheme, and shall still have, a great deal of waste, which is still waste even if it occurs in colonial development, and at the present time this country cannot afford waste. This is not just wasting money; no doubt, everybody in a good cause would be prepared to advocate higher taxation. It is not just money, but skill, raw materials and capital goods which we are wasting.
The only other point I should like to develop on the economic side is one which I will put shortly and with which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will deal in his reply. We must not, in all these ideas which the new Corporation is developing, just think of what we are going to take out of Africa. We must think of what we are going to put in, and this on the most commonplace business lines. We cannot spend in these Colonies a great deal of money, much of which goes on wages to indigenous labour, unless we are going to put in a proportionate amount of consumption goods


upon which that new money can be spent. Unless we are prepared to do that—and there are signs that we are not doing it adequately—we shall have inflation in these territories which will wreck the chances of the scheme succeeding and bring misery instead of benefit to the people. It is no good our thinking that we can undertake developments in the Colonies unless we are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to give them the consumption goods.
In conclusion may I say I have noted the very evident desire expressed on both sides of the Committee, for further opportunities to be provided for the discussion of these matters. Certainly, I will consult with my colleagues to see if there is any way in which such a thing can be facilitated. This is a matter on which the Committee now takes a deeper interest than it ever did before. I am not averse to controversy, and I speak in the House quite often on controversial matters—

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is fairly good at that.

Mr. Stanley: It is my hope, and I think the hope of nearly everybody in the Committee, not that we should keep colonial matters out of controversy, because controversy is the breath of progress, but that we should keep them out of party squabbles. Though, of course, we are going to disagree with a lot of things which the right hon. Gentleman does or is going to do, and we are going to be among those who criticise, just as hon. Members opposite did when I was sitting where the right hon. Gentleman now is, yet, at the same time, there is today a deep, underlying unity of purpose and a unity of method. I hope that is so.
In the possibility of putting the colonial administration above the chances—and they are great chances—of British elections, rests the only chance of a sane administration and a stable policy, something which will solve the greatest of all the problems facing this country today. That is the problem of how 40-odd million people in this country can adjust their relations with 60-odd million people spread all over the world, and pass from the original benevolent autocracy, through all those stages of greater responsibility, until there is reached finally a stage

where the political aspirations of the Colonies can be satisfied within the bounds of that Commonwealth to which we are attached, so that they and we can continue to work together for our benefit, for their benefit and for the benefit of the whole world.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): We have had an interesting Debate in which many speeches have been made raising various points, with some of which I shall try to deal. I sincerely regret that a large number of other speeches were not made, which I am sure would have been equally interesting, and I sympathise with those who were unable to make them. The last speech I found most interesting, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), as an old Parliamentarian, will permit me, as a very new one, to compliment him on it and to say how much I appreciated it and what a service it will be to the Colonial Office, I shall be grateful. The right hon. Gentleman is one to whom I always listen with pleasure, and whenever I see his name on the tape, I hurry into the Chamber to hear him. I have never heard a speech of his which I appreciated more than his speech tonight. There are other speeches which were helpful and important. I should particularly like to mention the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members- for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) and St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), who discussed the most important subject of local government. Those speeches with which I am unable to deal tonight, and those questions which I am unable to answer because of lack of time, I will try to deal with by correspondence.
The year's work, which has been presented to the Committee both in the report which has been mentioned so many times and also in my right hon. Friend's speech, has been one of hard work. Much solid groundwork has had to be done during the year, and all who have been concerned with it realise that they would like to have done much more and gone much further with development than has been possible with the resources available.
Before I deal with the development in more detail, following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol,


there are some points I wish to answer in various speeches. The first one is about the Seychelles. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) described an officer, the Attorney-General of the Seychelles, as a "pocket Hitler." I feel that to be an attack on an officer of the Colonial Service which is quite unjustified, and which should never have been made in this Committee. I understand and believe it is the custom of the House that we do not attack people who are not in a position to defend themselves.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Member arrange that I should have time in some subsequent Debate to elaborate what I said in detail, because I think the Committee would then agree with me?

Dr. Haden Guest: Why not apologise now?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Member alleged that this officer was a pocket Hitler. I consider that to be one of the worst affronts anyone can make—when we realise that the hon. Member described him as Hitler, the man who sent the Jews to the gas chamber, the man who destroyed family life in his own country, the man who convulsed humanity and rendered most of Europe a shambles. That is the man to whom the hon. Member has likened this unfortunate officer. And what has this officer done whom he has likened to Hitler? I will tell the Committee. What he has done has been to press the landlords of the Seychelles to pay their arrears of Income Tax.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot give way. The hon. Member for Hornsey has questioned the supply of officers into the Colonial Service. I can give him the assurance that never in the whole history of the Colonial Service has there been a higher standard of cadets than we are getting today, and anyone who saw them at the schools we have set up and in the courses we run would be most impressed. My right hon. Friend and I spent some hours with them at these courses, and came away stimulated by the enthusiasm and devotion to duty of these young men. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey on this point, that we must not let that enthusiasm die. It is important that these young men, when

they get into the field, should not have the same experience as befell most of then predecessors—having their ideas turned down so that they became apathetic. We must see that their enthusiasm is kept at the highest possible pitch.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Other Government Departments are using a new process of selection which seems to have certain definite advantages. Can my right hon. Friend say why the Colonial Office have not used this method?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Our people go through a proper sifting process, and we are quite satisfied with it. We have a series of post-graduate courses, refresher courses, for those who are returning from overseas territories, and who wish to rub up their knowledge in various ways. These courses are being much appreciated by those who attend them. The hon. Member for Hornsey also referred to arrangements for overseas students. While we are not entirely satisfied that everything possible is being done—we are short of hostel accommodation, which we are trying to remedy—there are associations like the Victoria League and the W.E.A. which are working in close harmony with us in trying to achieve the object of the committee.
On the question of Malaya, on which several Members have enlarged today, I wish to say this: the trouble there, as my right hon. Friend said, is, to some extent, a reflection of the trouble in China. Even during the Japanese occupation a certain amount of fighting was going on between the two opposing forces which, at that time, were quiescent in China and which, since then, have come into open conflict. There have always been some guerillas and gangsters in Malaya. In my days there I remember a man called "The Panther" who had quite a big guerilla gang, which used at times to operate on a large scale. On one occasion, in Province Wellesley, they actually raided and held up a whole town, and got away with various bank and post office deposits. There has always been some sporadic trouble in Malaya, but on nothing like the scale it is now.
During the campaign in and occupation of Malaya arms were dropped to, and hidden by, members of the resistance movement when it was presumed that we would fight a second campaign for the


reoccupation of Malaya. These have since come to light in the hands of these gangsters. As the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said, these gangsters are very difficult people to catch and segregate. The rubber tapper becomes a bandit at one moment and the next he is back again as a rubber tapper, before he can be isolated or identified.
The first threat was through the trade unions. They tried to make use of the trade union movement for their own ends. The Government in Malaya fought that, and that threat was foiled. Then there was the second threat of open violence which has now occurred. In my view, it was not possible for this to be completely foreseen, because it is only lately that there has been violence on anything like the present scale. This is shown by the figures for trade in Malaya. Yesterday, I said that 100,000 tons more rubber was produced last year than in 1940. Tin also is coming back very rapidly. There have been planted since the war 156,000 acres of rice in addition to that which was under paddy in 1945 when we went back. This immense recovery could not have taken place if the whole of the country were in a state of disruption. Of course, that has not been the case. The hon. Member for Hornsey and I toured the country pretty well, and at that time there was no sign of any large-scale violence from gangsters. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that this is an entirely new trouble which is not confined to Malaya. It has flared up in other places and it may flare up elsewhere in the future. We have to adjust ourselves to the new conditions.
As to the future, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and the other hon. Members who raised this question of Malaya a complete assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we will take every possible step to achieve stability in Malaya. We will do all we can to protect the lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens. All the necessary powers for which we have been asked have been given to the Government of Malaya. If they need any more which can be given them, we shall give them those powers and take all steps possible to support them. In fact, we will not engage in what was described by

one hon. Member opposite as a cat-and-mouse act. We are going right through with it, and we are going to stamp the disorder out. On our part and on the part of the Government of Malaya there will be no sheathing of the sword until we have completed our task.
Before I conclude my comments on the Malayan situation, tribute ought to be paid to the Malayan police—European, Chinese and Malay. I was particularly impressed by one report about some of the Malay police. They were surrounded by Chinese gangsters in a little police station miles away from anywhere in a Malayan village and when called upon to surrender not only by the gangsters but by one of their own N.C.Os. under duress, they refused and continued firing until all their ammunition was gone, when they rendered their weapons unusable—in fact, they threw them down the well and recovered them later—and took themselves into the jungle to be ready to fight again when the gangsters had gone. In such circumstances the police who act in that way are deserving of the highest possible commendation.
I should like to turn in the few minutes which are left to me to the last subject raised by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, and which has been touched upon by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—the economic development of the Colonial Empire. The physical condition of most of the countries in the Empire is that of under-development, and very great work has to be done before any development can be started, farming undertaken or industries set up. This is not always realised by people in metropolitan countries, who are not used to conditions in countries in Africa or in the Far East. In Borneo, for example, there is mostly swamp and no roads are there. Very much constructional work has to be done before development can be started. Swamps have to be drained and bush cleared before roads and bridges are erected. There are one hundred and one tasks to be done of which people in metropolitan countries do not always realise the necessity. Here it is a relatively simple matter for a man to erect his factory, if he can get the necessary licence, and go ahead.
On top of the other difficulties in undeveloped places, the age-old enemies of mankind have to be destroyed. This


is particularly the case in Borneo, or, for example, in Africa where we have to deal with the tsetse fly. I have been asked questions about this matter by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham. The tsetse fly occupies an area which has been computed to be 75 times the size of Great Britain. I cannot vouch for that computation, but a vast area of Africa is controlled by that pest. When it is there, neither man nor animal can live.
I was asked what success we had had against it as yet. The success is small because we are only in the planning stage. We hope to get started in September. We have a team in West Africa to try out the effect of aircraft spraying. We have certain types of spray which we hope will kill the tsetse fly. We have two aircraft available for the work, and we have ordered a helicopter which I hope will come into use some time next year. We are trying to tackle this task on a really big scale. In addition, we are trying the old methods of bush clearance, research on the type of bush that the tsetse feeds on, and other approaches. There is a new drug called 7555 which has been invented and of which we are not as yet quite confident. It is still having its field tests. I am not able to say yet whether it will be a success, but it may well be. At any rate, I hope so.
In regard to locusts, I am happy to say that we have conquered the locust menace for the time being. That menace has been very great in Africa. The last time the migratory locusts swarmed they did £20 million of damage, it is computed. This is one of those age-old enemies of mankind which at the moment we have brought completely under control, at some expense to the British taxpayer, and with international co-operation under the direction of Dr. Uvarov, who works under the direction of the Colonial Office. We have, in fact, conquered the locusts to a rather embarrassing extent. We had hoped to try out aircraft sprays on locusts in flight, but although we have searched all over Africa we cannot find any locusts in flight. That is possibly a fault on the good side.
Finally, with regard to the rinderpest virus, we believe we now have a

serum which will render cattle immune. The veterinary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture are not fully satisfied of that claim, so we are undertaking tests in East Africa and in Kenya which we hope will prove that we have an antidote, and that the rinderpest virus will not travel to other countries. In the semi-developed areas there is need for continual vigilance. It is perhaps a natural result of plantation growth in tea, cocoa, coffee, cloves, and many other types of tree and plant, that some killing disease attacks them sooner or later, and takes toll of them. No one seems to know why. We are doing a good deal of research into it, but it is a very worrying feature of the agricultural problem today in practically all colonial territories that the tree and plant life is subject to these killing diseases. It is just as important to try to find an antidote to the tree and plant killing diseases as it is to the animal killing pests.

Mr. Stanley: Is there any relationship between the different sudden deaths, such as in the case of the cocoa tree and cloves?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, the viruses are altogether different; there seems to be a revolt of nature, so to speak, when we introduce into a new country such as Africa a tree like the cocoa tree and develop it on a big scale. Nature begins to kill off the trees. As will be seen in the case of the Gold Coast, that is a very serious problem. We have already lost roughly 10 per cent. of the trees on the Gold Coast. Twenty-five million of these trees have gone. Unless the inhabitants of the Gold Coast will agree, which they have not as yet done, to a big cutting-out campaign, there is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of my right hon. Friend's advisers that most of the trees on the Gold Coast will go, and possibly those in Nigeria also. As more than 50 per cent. of the cocoa of the world comes from this region, one can imagine what a bar of chocolate will cost in future if that happens. We are trying to introduce the cocoa tree into Malaya, but the cocoa tree takes seven years to grow, so it will be some years before any great production can result.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol knows very well, in the Empire there are four main regions: the West Indian region, the West African region, the East African region and the


Malayan region. In the three regions of the West Indies, West Africa and Malaya, the pattern of development is fairly clear. Although there is a tremendous amount of work to be done, we know what we have to do when we get the machinery and other capital goods, and we know how to do it. However, in East Africa there is no pattern at all. That is the region where we must have a bold and imaginative plan based on the four main features mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby). I will not repeat them because I have on a previous occasion given them to the Committee, but I would like to say, in regard to the two organisations in East Africa, how much we are indebted to the labour and enthusiasm of the people on the spot. First, our debt of gratitude is due to those workers on the groundnuts scheme who have done a most magnificent job under most trying conditions. We should be deeply indebted to them for their work. The second is to those who toil in the Empire Cotton Growers' Association Scheme in East Africa. The work they are doing will yield untold benefit to this country, and particularly to Lancashire.
What we need in the Empire, first of all, is more information. We do not know what resources we have, and therefore we are undertaking aerial and other surveys on a considerable scale. If any hon. Members would like to see the work of our survey department, I should be only too pleased to make the necessary arrangements. They can see the type of work carried out in many parts of the Empire, and the result of it, in maps and plans. It is necessary to do this because even we in the Colonial Office have very little knowledge, as I have said, of what we have got in these undeveloped lands. Some years ago a licence to develop two islands was given to a trading company.
As soon as it was announced, there was a heated protest from a foreign Government, which said that one of the islands belonged to it, and there was another caustic letter from the Royal Geographical Society to say that 20 years before it was proved conclusively that the other island had never existed. So it is necessary, as hon. Members can see, to have up-to-date knowledge of what we have got.
Then we must have the necessary physical resources, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol has said, both capital goods and incentive goods, and the right type of incentive goods; the type of incentive goods that the people of the particular locality need, and not incentive goods of a type for which the manufacturer of this country cannot get a market elsewhere. Then we need to have the best possible public relations in the broadest sense—I do not just mean public relations departments—so as to explain to the people of the colonial territories what we are doing and why we are doing it, so that we will carry them with us in whatever we are doing rightly and properly for their benefit.
Then, too, we need to increase the mass education projects which have only as yet started on quite a small scale. In other words, what we want are boldness and imagination in planning, and determination and energy in execution. And it is not merely His Majesty's Government, and particularly the Colonial Office, which have to show this imagination and determination; it is every Colonial Government, too, and the municipalities which, in some cases, are getting quite powerful organs of government, and the private firms and individuals. We have a young Commando colonel in East Africa doing a magnificent job for us on contract. He has taken a lot of his Commandos out with him and is doing a magnificent job under most difficult conditions. Among other things, he is surveying the Katanga River which runs from Lake Victoria to the Mountains of the Moon. The men have no comforts, they are working under tremendous difficulties, but he told me that he can get no end of people to go with him; in fact, he would have lost most of his staff in this country if he had not undertaken something of this kind because, he said, it appeals to the imagination of the young Briton of today. That is the type of man we want in East Africa.
Finally, I would say that we must have in these schemes—particularly in Africa, but in other countries as well, in Borneo, possibly, for example—international co-operation. Pests and diseases do not acknowledge or recognise frontiers, and we are continually meeting the representatives of other Powers which have African responsibilities. As yet it is


mostly on a technical level, dealing with pest control and so on, but eventually we shall proceed to deal not merely with matters of that kind but also with the big developments that must take place.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the serious situation in British Guiana to which I drew attention?

Dr. Morgan: Come to me afterwards and I will tell you about it.

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, I shall not attempt to deal with it tonight. To return to what I was saying, there are, for instance, the great lakes in the centre of Africa which provide a magnificent waterway which can be used to develop a great hinterland to the benefit of both the Belgian territories and our own. And there are the Central and East African railways which, again, need to be developed, which would open up vast territories, and would enable practically all the people of that vast area to enjoy the advantages of communications, rail and road.
The hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) asked me whether our dreams would come true. Well, that is a big order. All I can say is that we in the Colonial Office, provided we get the support of the people of this country, and the full co-operation of the people of the Colonial Empire, can do a great deal to make those dreams come true.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.—[Mr. Snow.]

Orders of the Day — CAPITAL GOODS (EXPORT PRICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to raise tonight a matter of some considerable importance and urgency. I want to make it quite clear from the outset that my quarrel is not with the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of the Department for Overseas Trade, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury or the Financial Secretary, but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Whilst I appreciate that it may not be

possible for him to be here tonight, I wish to make it quite plain that I propose to continue this bombardment until I get a statement from him either in this House or in the country. It seems perfectly futile for him to continue to try to close what appears to a great many people to be an unclosable gap if he will not pay attention to some of the essentials which stand out a mile. I want to explain tonight exactly how I view this situation.
My claim is simply this: that we are paying a great deal too much for many of our imports and we are getting far too little for many of our exports, particularly the exports of capital goods. When millions of people have empty bellies those with food to sell can comparatively easily put up the price because people are more uncomfortable with empty bellies than with anything else; but equally it is true, the world over, that administrative organisations—the companies, the Governments, the people who organise the production of goods—are starving for want of capital goods. It is astonishing that we appear to continue to tolerate this exploitation—I would even call it fleecing—of our own pockets by those who sell food and continue to sell cheaply to them the capital goods which they desire to keep their economy going.
The Chancellor has told me in correspondence—correspondence running over many months, as mine has a habit of doing—that Ministers have repeatedly made statements agreeing with the view which I hold. That is an extraordinary statement, but it is very welcome and I do not cavil at it. But the only evidence I have been able to find is that to which the Chancellor refers in his letter of 29th May last—a speech by the President of the Board of Trade on 19th April. In a Debate which had been opened by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and in reply particularly to some points which I had raised about the prices for capital goods, the President said:
I agree with what he—
the hon. Member for Ipswich—
said. But we must leave this to the manufacturers. We do not fix prices for capital goods. We must leave it to the manufacturers, in present conditions, to get what they can, subject to any protection in the matter of keeping their markets. We do not want them to try to fleece the foreigner.


Incidentally, let us be quite frank with our American and Canadian friends and others that they have been busy for a long time fleecing us. I do not make any bones about that when I talk to them. This was what the President said:
We do not want them to try to fleece the foreigner. That would lose markets …
—it always tends to lose markets, of course, except when bellies are con-cerned—
… and we would suffer in the long term for what we had done in the short term."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1580.]
I do not entirely disagree with what the President said but my grouse is that, whilst the Chancellor says this has been broadcast to manufacturers up and down the land, I cannot find any manufacturers who have heard it. I certainly have not. I have been in touch with one or two hon. and right hon. Members in the House and they have not. None of them was present in the Debate and they do not read HANSARD every day, although they should. It is no use leaving it to a casual answer to a back bencher by the President of the Board of Trade. What wants doing is the making of some announcement which the people mainly concerned can hear. That is why after all these months of unsatisfactory replies I am raising the matter tonight.
I made a very severe accusation against some of our friends overseas, be they of the Dominion or of our Allies, about the amount which is being charged to us on the import of food in particular, compared with prices of what we send abroad. I wish to support that by some figures. I refer particularly to the United States of America. In 1947 compared with 1938, and taking the index figure for 1938 as 100, for fresh fruit and vegetables imported from the United States, of which there was a very considerable quantity—something like 85,000 tons or 1,744,000-odd cwt.—the index figure was 293, three times as much.
The whole burden of my argument tonight is that whereas food costs us anything from three to four times as much as in 1938, we are getting only about twice as much for the capital goods we export. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will keep that in mind as I quote these figures. It is not always useful to quote figures for 1948

because, owing to restrictions, the amounts involved are so slight, but take another food figure, fruit juices. In 1947 as compared with the figure of 100 in 1938—and incidentally the imports in quantity were nearly three times as much as in 1938—the figure is 517—five times as much. I agree that it was a much less quantity in the first five months of 1948. We then come to wheat, and although in statistics it is described as wheat, I am not quite sure that an amount of it is not barley, which has an important bearing on what I am going to say about whisky. Wheat, or grain, in 1947 was more than three times as expensive as in 1938. The quantity was half, I agree, and for a less quantity in 1948 the price has gone up quite considerably again.
Compare this with our capital goods exports, first to the United States of America. It is extremely difficult to get detailed figures for different countries, but I have done my best, and the figures I give are endorsed by my own experience, and I do not think they are far strained. In 1938 the average price of our exports of capital goods—I am speaking particularly of machinery and heavy engineering Goods—to the United States of America, Cost £200 a ton. In 1947 they cost £430, which is only about 115 per cent. up compared with food which is 300 or 200 per cent. up on 1938. The iron and steel average in 1938 was £10 a ton and in 1947 about £25 a ton. Generally speaking heavy tools and machinery exported as far as one can extract from the statistical data available was just about twice as expensive to the United States of America in 1947 as in 1938.
As I say that compares with food being three times, four times and in some cases five times as much. Taking capital goods, the astonishing thing, when one looks at the position in reverse, is that whereas one would expect on the figures I have given to find the United States figures corresponding with our own, nothing of the kind is the case. Goods similar to those which cost £100 per ton when imported from the United States to this country in 1938 cost £307 per ton in 1947, almost three times as much. Even in a direct exchange of capital goods for capital goods we were disadvantaged.
I do not want anyone to feel that I am "taking a crack" at the United States. I am "taking a crack" at our own


Government's policy. As a commercial man I do not blame the other chap for getting as much as he can if he is given every encouragement to do so. My complaint is that we are giving it. Take Canada, one of our Great Dominions. In 1938 we paid about 7s. per cwt. for wheat and in 1947 20s. per cwt., three times more than in 1938. In the ordinary iron and steel trade we paid £10 per ton for imports from Canada in 1938; in 1947 we paid £30 per ton, again three times as much.
When one looks at the position the other way round what does one find? Machinery from this country to Canada cost £150 per ton in 1938 and £330 per ton in 1947 which is only just over twice as much. I am sorry to give so many figures as I know how much this House dislikes that, but there is no way of comparing the figures except by explaining how the figures do not balance. That can only be done by giving details. My hon. Friend will agree with me that that is fundamental.
I come to rather a different issue, or rather a different kind of case, concerning what I would call semi-luxury goods. Here the comparison is even more startling. I refer to whisky. Everybody in this country except the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) who is not here tonight, complains that they have not enough whisky to drink. What are the figures? In 1938 we exported to the United States 4 million gallons of whisky at approximately 28s. a gallon, at any rate the total figure was £5,600,000. In 1947 we sent practically the same amount—4 million gallons—and the price was 40s. per gallon or £8 million, an increase of approximately 40 per cent. Yet we have been importing wheat, grain and barley to make the whisky at up to about four times the value of what they were in 1938. I cannot understand why the Government put up with the nonsense which the distillers tell them, but that is a different issue and I do not want to do more than call attention to it.
Even if the argument about whisky is that we should not sell as much if we put up the price, the majority of non-teetotal public of this country would be extremely glad if we sold half the quantity at double the price and kept the remaining half here. Incidentally it would be a

good revenue bearing commodity for the Government and the Exchequer. The same applies to Canada except that extraordinarily the price to Canada seems to be quite different from the price to the United States which perhaps the great pundits of the distillers would explain. So far as I remember, their argument in this House, as put forward by some one else, is that one cannot sell things at different prices in different countries. May I explode that at once? That is absolute unadulterated rubbish.
I have been in business for 25 years. I do not sit down and say "Here is my price, and this rules everywhere from Timbuctoo to the north of South America or the south of North America," or where-ever it may be. I study the markets. I do not find people are upset if I charge what I can get out of them. It is, with great respect, unadulterated bunk that these people put over, and it is done in order to safeguard their own markets, which I quite understand. But the Government in my view, should take a firmer line.
I do not wish to bore the House with an increasing number of detailed figures, but I do want to suggest this as a possible line of consideration. In 1947 our exports from this country in volume were, at the 1938 level plus 10 per cent. The value was 226 in 1947, taking the index or 1938 as 100. In other words, 125 per cent. above what they were in 1938. The imports, on the other hand, very interestingly, were, in volume, practically identical, but the value has gone up to 267. In other words, we were paying about 40 per cent. more for the same volume of imports in 1947 as in 1938 than we were getting for the same volume of exports.
It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting back and being complacent about the situation today, because it is getting steadily worse. I do not understand why the public are not beginning to understand this. Quite seriously, but for Marshall Aid we are going steadily and absolutely bankrupt. Unless people do understand it they will not pull up their socks and do something. I know my own countrymen fairly well, I have lived among them all my life. I know that when they understand what they are up against they do things.
But now we get miserable Ministers trying to make a case for their own


Departments and giving wrong facts to the public. I think that somebody—the Lord President of the Council, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister—ought to go down with a hammer and slam them on the head and say, "You must not do that, you are misleading the public." They all want to make a case for their own Department. It is like a fifth form school boy who wishes to make out that he is doing a good job. But if in the process the public is misled so that they do not make the extra effort required, it is going to be absolutely disastrous.
I should like in the few minutes which the Economic Secretary does not want to occupy to say a few words about some of the fallacies which I think are indulged in. The first is that it is time we abandoned this silly slogan of "too much money chasing too few goods." It raises the impression that it is the fault of the money. It is not the fault of money at all. Money is an absolute humbug. Any Government can "make" money. It is just a matter of operating a printing press to make it. It has no real value at all. It is not linked to anything at all. To tell them that too much money is chasing too few goods is like saying that if we put a pile of money in the middle of the floor and set fire to it, things would get better. The situation is not going to get better at all. We are not going to get more goods that way. What we should say is, "Too few goods—let's have more." What we have to explain is that we have to produce more goods otherwise we are not going to have more. It does not matter twopence how much money we have if there are no goods. We have to produce more.
Fallacy No. 2 is this. I have heard several very competent senior Ministers say this, and I am surprised at their ignorance. They urge manufacturers to have a bigger turnover and make less profit. Quite frankly, as an industrialist who has not yet been in the bankruptcy court, I fail to see how we are to follow that policy, unless we are determined to get into the bankruptcy court. If we want to get there that is precisely the way to do it. If you have a bigger turnover, if you are a competent person, you must make more profit though it may be at a less rate. There should be no stigma

attached to so doing. That ought to be made clear to the ordinary rank and file up and down the country.
I come to the question of exports. I do not know how you are to get the export manufacturer, particularly of capital goods for export, to charge more for his goods and get a higher output if he is told at the same time that it is a cardinal crime to make more money. Again, I do not think that you can do it. The businesses with which I am concerned—and this is over about 20 to 25 years with the two concerns—have been engaged in the export trade up to not more than half, but about that, of their capacity. Before the war we always examined our markets and, unlike these ridiculous people who make whisky and sell it abroad, we do not sell the same goods at the same price everywhere. We find out what we can get and we get as much as we darned well can.
As a rule, we cannot get more than we can get at home. The situation today is quite different. The world is crying out for capital goods. I have carried out a survey of each of the countries with which we deal in both companies and with one small exception, everybody wants capital goods and, as far as we can see, they will continue to want them. In fact, we get as much if not more—I do not say more than that—for the capital goods we export compared with what we get on the home market. No exporter will do more than that so long as the stigma attaches to making too much money. He will not do it. He is looking at his export market and saying, "Obviously, all I need to do is to charge as much as I need in order to keep a balanced picture for my shareholders. I must not make too much money because I shall get kicked in the pants if I do. Therefore, although I could get more, I will not take it. I know that by not taking too much I am cultivating goodwill and that is good for me."
I agree that it is not the responsibility of the Government to lay down the law to the manufacturers as to what they should charge. I agree that would be absolutely silly. The markets differ everywhere, even with capital goods, and nobody knows it better than I do myself. The matter must be left to the manufacturers to a very large extent. The Government ought to encourage them to charge as much as they can get, especially in hard currency areas. That ought to be


made widely known. The way to make them do it, having regard to this huge demand which exists for capital goods today, is not to put out a great publicity statement. I do not want that. I would be content if I could find out any of the statements which either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has made to any of the manufacturers. The only one I can find is the one made by the President of the Board of Trade, which I quoted. I consider that that is entirely inadequate.
All that the manufacturers need to be told is that no stigma attaches to making profits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait a minute. I have not finished yet. Let us be frank about it, because they will have to do it. It is quite time that the national corporations realised that no stigma attaches to making profits. One cannot run businesses at a loss or on a balance. There must be a margin on the right side. I beg both my hon. Friend and the Lord President of the Council, whom I am glad to see here on this celebrated occasion, to emphasise to the Cabinet that what matters is not the making of profits but the way in which they are distributed. Obviously, it must benefit the people as a whole if we can get 15 or 20 per cent. more for a proportion of our capital goods exported. That must reflect itself on the balance sheets. We will not get manufacturers to do it unless they realise that they do it without stigma, and that the stigma attaches not to making more but to the wrongful distribution of what they have made. I hope that, after this Debate tonight, in the few minutes which I have left to the Economic Secretary to reply, there will be at least some assurance from him that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Chancellor and ask him to go to it.

10.26 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) told us that his quarrel was with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he really did not care in the least what I said.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, no.

Mr. Jay: I assure him that I will bring this matter to the attention of my right

hon. and learned Friend. I do not expect that the hon. Member will pay any attention to what I have not now got the time to say. I think there was a great deal of horse sense in what he said, and I hope his speech will be widely read by his fellow manufacturers. I hope he himself will do all he can to broadcast his speech to other members of industry.
The hon. Member's main point was that we are paying very much more for the goods we buy from abroad in relation to before the war, and I said that myself in a Debate two days ago on the European Recovery Programme, when my hon. Friend was not here, and it was not so well received by hon. Members opposite as my hon. Friend's speech tonight. I quite agree that it is all too true, and it is a very important truth, and one of our main economic problems today. It is one thing to say that we are paying too much and quite a different matter to do something about it. In the case of export prices, which is what the hon. Member was talking about, it really is not mainly a matter for the Government to decide. I will make one pronouncement on behalf of the Government, and that is that we would like everybody in industry to read his speech. I will go as far as that.
There are two views on this question of export prices. The first and simple view is that, since the higher the price charged the more foreign exchange is earned, we should charge prices as high as the traffic will bear; this was the hon. Member's point of view. The other point of view is that if the prices charged are too high, they will have an impact on what we can sell, and we might rose valuable export markets in the long run. Our view is that the manufacturer is better fitted than the Government to look after that. It seems to us, that, since 80 per cent. of industry will still be run by the private manufacturer, this is really a matter for him to decide.
My hon. Friend mentioned whisky, and he reminded me of the couplet:
I often wonder what the Vintners buy,
One half so precious as the goods they sell.
Whisky is an interesting case in which the Government, since the war, have been encouraging the manufacturers to charge more for their goods in foreign markets, and in which the manufacturers have been very disinclined to do so. Who was right


in that particular controversy I would not like, at the moment, to say. Obviously, we do want to see the highest prices charged for exports and the highest amounts of foreign exchange earned consistent with retaining our markets in the long run. I think that that, briefly, is the Government's attitude in this matter. We think that in particular cases it is for the

manufacturers to decide, and we shall be very ready to see it decided in that way, after having given due weight to what the hon. Member has said.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.